sovereign immunity – Page 75

Second Circuit Brief in IFP, Pro Se Employment Discrimination Complaint against Mohegan Sun Casino

November 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the tribe’s brief in Tremblay v. Mohegan Sun Casino:

From the brief:

On May 20, 2014, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The full text of the decision is as follows:

ORDER granting [27] Motion to Dismiss; denying [28] Motion Not to Dismiss. Plaintiff brings this action against her former employer, the Mohegan Sun Casino, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The motion is granted. The Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut, which operates the defendant Casino through the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (“MTGA”), is a federally recognized Indian tribe. “As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe *4 has waived its immunity.” Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Mfg. Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998). Neither has occurred here. The Mohegan Tribe has not waived its immunity from suit in this Court, and the statutes under which plaintiff brings this action do not abrogate the Tribe’s immunity. Title VII is expressly inapplicable to Indian tribes, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)(1), and nothing in the ADEA revokes tribal sovereign immunity from private lawsuits. Garcia v. Akwesasne Housing Authority, 268 F.3d 76, 86 (2d Cir. 2001). Thus, plaintiff cannot bring claims of employment discrimination against an Indian tribe under Title VII or the ADEA. The Mohegan Tribe has enacted legislation establishing a tribal court system as well as legislation waiving the sovereign immunity of the Tribe and the Gaming Authority for discrimination claims by employees against the MTGA, but only in the Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court. Thus, plaintiff’s only remedy is to proceed in that Court. Accordingly, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 27] is granted and plaintiff’s motion not to dismiss [ECF No. 28] is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the case. So ordered. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 05/20/2014. (Bialek, T.)

Friends of Amador County v. Jewell Cert Stage Briefs

November 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

FAC Cert Petition

Buena Vista Rancheria Opposition

FAC Reply

Question presented:

Whether, in an action by a third party against the Secretary of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., a putative Indian tribe may invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of the Secretary’s decision to recognize it as a tribe.

Lower court materials here.

FTCA Claim Arising from Tule River Reservation Employee-Caused Accident Dismissed

November 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Manuel v. United States (E.D. Cal.):

11-1 US Motion to Dismiss

16 Manuel Opposition

21 US Reply

23 DCT Order

An excerpt:

In sum, Plaintiff fails to establish that the Tribe’s self-determination contracts authorized Hammond’s acts or omissions underlying Plaintiff’s negligence claim. Allender, 379 F. Supp. 2d at 1211. Defendant, however, has demonstrated that the Tribe’s self-determination contracts did not establish, fund, or contemplate Hammond’s position as Tribal community liaison. Plaintiff has also failed to allege facts showing that Hammond was carrying out any of the Tribe’s self-determination contracts. The Court therefore finds that Hammond is not an employee of the federal government under Section 314. Consequently, Defendant is not subject to liability under the FTCA for Hammond’s alleged negligence. Accordingly, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Harvard Law Review Comment on Michigan v. Bay Mills

November 13, 2014November 13, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is Leading Case: Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014).

An excerpt:

While the Court’s decision is a victory for those who feared the abrogation of tribal immunity, its suggestion that states seek remedies in state law signals approval of leaving the resolution of legal questions central to state-tribe disputes to the states, even when the question concerns the extent of Indian land. Such a view would be inconsistent with recent trends generally favoring greater federal control and congressional support for tribal self-determination, and could result in actions that are detrimental to tribes.

Tenth Circuit Reverses Oklahoma v. Hobia Relying on Bay Mills

November 10, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion:

CA10 Opinion

Lower court supplemental briefs here.

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials here.

Buena Vista Rancheria Cert Opposition Brief

November 6, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Buena Vista Rancheria Opposition

The United States has waived its right to respond.

The cert petition is here.

Updated Materials in Michigan v. Sault Tribe — State Seeks to Sue Tribal Officials

November 4, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in State of Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (W.D. Mich.):

49 Renewed Motion to Dismiss

53-1 State Motion for Relief

55 State Response to Motion to Dismiss

57 Soo Tribe Reply

58 Soo Tribe Response to Motion for Relief

60 State Reply

63 DCT Order to Adjourn and Reschedule Oral Argument

Sixth Circuit materials are here.

Federal Court Materials (So Far) in Suit against Seminole Tribe’s Section 17 Corporation

October 30, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Lujen Brands LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida Inc. (S.D. Fla.):

14 STOFI Motion to Dismiss

15 Lujen Response

18 STOFI Reply

DCT paperless order:

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Seminole Tribe of Florida, Inc., Mike Ulizio, and Chris Osceola’s (STOFI Defendants) 14 Motion to Dismiss Complaint With Prejudice for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE the STOFI Defendants’ 31 Motion for Scheduling Conference; and GRANTING Plaintiff’s 32 Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures. On May 2, 2014, the STOFI Defendants filed a 14 Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that they are immune from suit by virtue of the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. In its 15 Response, Plaintiff requested jurisdictional discovery. It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff shall have forty-five (45) days to conduct jurisdictional discovery narrowly tailored to the subject-matter jurisdiction issue implicated by the STOFI Defendants’ 14 Motion to Dismiss. Discovery may not stray to merits issues. The Parties are directed to confer and cooperate in good faith in determining the logistics of the discovery. After the forty-five (45) day jurisdictional discovery period, the STOFI Defendants may, if they choose, refile their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that all parties shall proceed to merits discovery at the conclusion of the forty-five (45) day jurisdictional discovery period. This entry constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety. Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 8/22/2014. (jn) (Entered: 08/22/2014)

38 STOFI Motion for Reconsideration

46 Lujen Response

48 STOFI Reply

DCT Order:

ORDER GRANTING Seminole Tribe of Florida, Inc. (STOFI), Mike Ulizio, and Chris Osceola’s (STOFI Defendants) 38 Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s August 22, 2014 Paperless Order. In their Motion, the STOFI Defendants argue that the Court’s August 22, 2014 Order (D.E. 33) implies that if they were to re-file their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity grounds at the close of jurisdictional discovery, they would nevertheless have to participate in merits discovery before the Court issued a ruling on the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See D.E. 38 at 2). The STOFI Defendants further argue that if the Court were to order them to engage in merits discovery prior to resolution of the issue of sovereign immunity, the Court would be infringing on their tribal sovereign immunity and that such an order would constitute error. (Id.). Plaintiff asserts no argument on this issue in its Response. (See D.E. 46). The Court is permitted to resolve the issue of sovereign immunity before allowing discovery. See Caraballo-Sandoval v. Honsted, 35 F.3d 521, 524 (11th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that, at the close of jurisdictional discovery, should the STOFI Defendants re-file their Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity grounds, the Court will stay this action as to the STOFI Defendants pending the resolution of the Motion to Dismiss.

The STOFI Defendants also argue in their Motion that the Court should more precisely define the boundaries of jurisdictional discovery. In its August 22, 2014 Order, the Court stated that “jurisdictional discovery [shall be] narrowly tailored to the subject-matter jurisdiction issue implicated by the STOFI Defendants’ [May 2, 2014] Motion to Dismiss. Discovery may not stray to merits issues.” (D.E. 33). STOFI argues that, because it has sovereign immunity unless it waives such immunity in its Charter or by contract, the only proper jurisdictional discovery against it concerning sovereign immunity goes to waiver, not to whether it is a subordinate economic entity of the Seminole Tribe of Florida. (See D.E. 38 at 8). The Court agrees. In accordance with binding precedent, STOFI is entitled to sovereign immunity unless and until it waives such immunity. Maryland Cas. Co. v. Citizens Nat. Bank of W. Hollywood, 361 F.2d 517, 520-22 (5th Cir. 1966); see also Inglish Interests, LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, Inc., No. 2:10cv367FtM29DNF, 2011 WL 208289, at *5-6 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 21, 2011). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that jurisdictional discovery regarding STOFI is limited to the issue of whether STOFI waived sovereign immunity. Jurisdictional discovery shall not be permitted on the issue of whether STOFI is a subordinate economic entity of the Seminole Tribe of Florida, because, in the Eleventh Circuit, that issue is irrelevant with respect to whether STOFI has sovereign immunity. See Maryland Cas. Co., 361 F.2d at 520-22. Jurisdictional discovery shall be permitted on the issue of whether Ulizio and Osceola are also entitled to sovereign immunity.

It is further ORDERED that the forty-five day jurisdictional discovery period is to begin from the date of this order, as requested by the parties. Accordingly, the parties shall have until and including November 3, 2014, to complete jurisdictional discovery. This entry constitutes the ENDORSED ORDER in its entirety.

Signed by Judge Joan A. Lenard on 9/18/2014. (jn) (Entered: 09/18/2014)

Miccosukee Effort to Disqualify Judge in Billy Cypress Matter Fails

October 29, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Cypress (S.D. Fla.):

408 Miccosukee Motion to Disqualify Judge

410 Lewis & Tein Opposition to 408

411 Lehtinen Opposition to 408

416 Miccosukee Reply in Support of 408

417 Order Denying Motion to Disqualify

A large part of the case is pending before the CA11. We posted on the lower court materials here (denial of tribe motion to reconsider), here (tribe motion to reconsider), and here (granting motion to dismiss).