sovereign immunity – Page 84

Applying the arm-of-the-tribe analysis as we directed in Ameriloan v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 81 (Ameriloan), the trial court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction this action by the Commissioner of the California Department of Corporations against five “payday loan” businesses owned by Miami Nation Enterprises (MNE), the economic development authority of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and SFS, Inc., a corporation wholly owned by the Santee Sioux Nation, also a federally recognized Indian tribe. Because the two tribal entities and their cash-advance and short-term-loan businesses are sufficiently related to their respective Indian tribes to be protected from this state enforcement action under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity, we affirm.

A second related opinion from the same court:

B236547_Opinion

An excerpt:

The Commissioner of the California Department of Corporations (Commissioner),1 on behalf of the People of the State of California, sued Ameriloan, United Cash Loans, US Fast Cash, Preferred Cash and One Click Cash for injunctive relief, restitution and civil penalties, alleging they were providing short-term, payday loans over the Internet to California residents in violation of several provisions of the California Deferred Deposit Transaction Law (DDTL) (Fin. Code, § 2300 et seq.). Miami Nation Enterprises (MNE), the economic development authority of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and SFS, Inc., a corporation wholly owned by the Santee Sioux Nation, also a federally recognized Indian tribe, specially appeared and moved to quash service of summons and to dismiss the complaint on the ground the lending businesses named as defendants were simply trade names used by the two tribal entities and, as wholly owned and controlled entities of their respective tribes operating on behalf of the tribes, they were protected from this state enforcement action under the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity.

During the course of this litigation on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, the trial court imposed $34,437.50 in discovery sanctions against the Commissioner after the court denied in substantial part her motion to compel further responses to a second set of requests for production of documents from MNE and SFS. We affirm.

Arizona COA Affirms Tribal Immunity from Contract Claim in MM&A v. Yavapai-Apache

January 20, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in MM&A PRODUCTIONS, LLC v. YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION. An excerpt:

MM&A Productions, LLC, appeals from the trial court’s judgment dismissing its contract action against the Yavapai-Apache Nation and related entities for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It argues the court erred by concluding it had failed to show a valid waiver of the Nation’s sovereign immunity, and by not allowing further discovery and holding an evidentiary hearing before ruling. We affirm.

Here are the briefs:

MM&A Brief

Yavapai-Apache Answer Brief

MM&A Reply

“Advantage Gamblers” Civil Rights Suit against State and County Officials Continues

January 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Pistor v. Garcia (D. Ariz.):

106 Plaintiff Motion for Partial Summary J

129 County Defendants Response

132 State Defendants Response

168 DCT Order

The suit against the tribal officials is before the Ninth Circuit now, materials here.

Nooksack COA Rules against Nooksack Disenrollees

January 16, 2014January 16, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack App.):

Lomeli v Kelly COA Opinion

An excerpt:

This appeal is from the Tribal Com1’s order dismissing Appellants· second amended complaint. Appellants requested the Tribal Court enjoin members of the Nooksack Tribal Council from conducting disenrollment proceedings against them. Appellants are understandably gravely concemed at the prospect of disenrollment. We understand how serious the prospect of disenrollment is to Appellants. and how it impacts their cultural. social and political identity.

We also recognize that determining its own membership is a hallmark of a tribe’s sovereignty. It is one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has withstood the relentless attempts by outside forces to tear down tribal self-governance, and one of the few aspects of tribal sovereignty that has not been eroded by the federal government.

Judges are not sages. We do not delude ourselves into believing we have the wisdom of a Solomon. It is not our role to insert ourselves into the Tribe’s political fray. or second guess the political judgments made by the Tribe’s elected leaders or its voting members, even if we believe those judgments unwise. We, like the trial court. are limited to resolving legal questions where authorized by the Tribe’s Constitution and laws.

The nature of this dispute requires us to find the delicate balance between Nooksack lawand politics keeping in mind the equal importance attached to both Tribal membership and Tribal sovereignty. The Tribe’s Constitution guides us in this difficult task. which we are duty bound to perform.

The Nooksack judiciary is not the only Nooksack governmental body whose decisions are tethered to the Tribe’s Constitution and laws. The decisions of its elected officials are as well. The trial judge expressed it well and it is worth repeating:

The Tribal Council members named in this Complaint hold an obligation to act in the best interests of the Nooksack Indian Tribe. Membership and enrollment decisions impact individual lives in the deepest possible ways and those decisions cannot be taken lightly. This Cotut recognizes the serious implications of this case and its decision on this motion and all the others that have preceded it. It is the solemn obligation of this Court to follow the law of the Nooksack Indian Tribe and it is the obligation of the Tribal Council to do the same.

Briefs are here and here.

Lower court materials are here.

Federal Court Dismisses Skokomish Treaty Rights Claims against State under 11th Amendment and Rule 19

January 15, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark (W.D. Wash.):

59 State Defendants Motion to Dismiss

60 Prosecuting Attys Motion to Dismiss

67 Tribal Amici Motion to Dismiss

71 Skokomish Reponse

116 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

Being fully advised, the court GRANTS both motions on grounds that Skokomish Indian Tribe failed to join certain other Indian tribes in this action. These other tribes are required parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, but cannot be joined due to their sovereign immunity. Because the court concludes that the action cannot proceed “in equity and good conscience” without these other tribes, see id., the court dismisses Skokomish Indian Tribe’s action without prejudice. With respect to Defendants Goldmark and Young only, the court also grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss on grounds of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and because Skokomish Indian Tribe has failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Nevertheless, despite granting Defendants’ motions, the court also grants Skokomish Indian Tribe leave to amend its Amended Complaint.

We posted the complaint here.

Federal Court Seeks Briefing on Whether Tribe Waived Immunity by Removing FMLA Claim against Tribe to Federal Court

January 13, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Bodi v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (E.D. Cal.):

19 Shingle Springs Motion to Dismiss

31 Bodi Opposition

37 Shingle Springs Reply

40 DCT Order

From the order:

The court is concerned by a predicate question: whether the Tribe waived sovereign immunity by removing the action to federal court.

The issue is an open one in the Ninth Circuit. District courts to have considered it focus their analysis on whether tribal immunity is more analogous to states’ immunity to suit under the Eleventh Amendment, or to foreign nations’ immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 27 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. Courts taking the former position have found removal to constitute waiver, see, e.g., State Eng’r v. S. Fork Band of the Te–Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone Indians, 66 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (D. Nev. 1999), while courts taking the latter position have not, see, e.g., Ingrassia v. Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino, 676 F. Supp. 2d 953 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

Federal Court Rejects Narragansett Effort to Dismiss Attorney Fees Suit on Immunity Grounds

January 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the updated materials in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (D. R.I.):

18-1 Narragansett Motion for Reconsideration

19-1 Luckerman Response

20 Narragansett Reply

22 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration

An excerpt:

On August 29, 2013, this Court denied Defendant Narragansett Indian Tribe’s (“Tribe”) motion to dismiss, but stayed adjudication of the case pending tribal exhaustion.¹ Now, the Tribe has filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision (ECF No. 18), re-emphasizing the Tribe’s position that its tribal sovereign immunity bars the instant lawsuit, and asking again that the Court dismiss the claims brought by Plaintiff Douglas J. Luckerman. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Earlier, the federal court remanded the case to tribal court for exhaustion purposes, post here. Other lower court materials here and here.