Bruce Fein on NYs Strategy against Tribal Payday Lenders

From HuffPo, here.

Sac and Fox Nation SCT Decides Sovereign Immunity Matter involving Contract Arbitration Clause

Here is the opinion in United Planners Financial Services of America v. Sac and Fox Nation:

Order APL-12-01

An excerpt:

There is nothing in the record indicating that the Business Committee met, voted, and approved by resolution or otherwise any specific arbitration clause with Broker or approved any broker agreement, by reference to a specific agreement, which contained an arbitration clause. We do not find any error with the District Court’s finding that authorized representatives of the Nation did execute the broker agreements with Broker. This is because certain officials of the Nation were authorized by resolution to “sell, assign and endorse for transfer, certificates representing stocks, bonds, or other securities now registered or hereafter registered in the name of this corporation.” (App. Rec. at 85-88). But this general approval to engage in broker activities does not rise to the level of an express approval of any arbitration clause or waiver of tribal sovereign immunity. Thus, while we find that the broker agreements were validly approved by the Nation, we do not find valid approval of the arbitration clause that would subject the Nation to be compelled to arbitrate.

Federal Dismisses Robison Rancheria Disenrollee Complaint without Prejudice

Here is the order in Harrison v. Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Business Council (N.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint wo Prejudice

Briefs are here.

Complaint is here.

Mille Lacs Band Wins $5.6M Judgment against Money Centers of America

Here are the materials in Corporate Commission of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Money Centers of America (D. Minn.):

141 MCA Motion to Dismiss

155 Baena Advisors Motion to Dismiss

160 Real Estate Empowered Motion to Dismiss

169 Mille Lacs Motion for Summary J

170 Mille Lacs Exhibits

172 MCA Motion for Summary J

180 Mille Lacs Opposition to 160

181 Mille Lacs Opposition to MCA Motions

182 MCA Opposition to Mille Lacs Motion

184 Mille Lacs Reply

185 MCA Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

186 MCA Reply in Support of Motion for Summary J

187 Reply in Support of 160

199 Melanie Banjamin Motion to Quash

205 MCA Opposition to Motion to Quash

211 MJ Order Granting Motion to Quash

240 DCT Order re Motion to Dismiss

239 DCT Order re Summary J

241 MJ Order re Motion to Compel

Prior materials here.

Federal Court Denies Injunction in Otoe-Missouria Tribe v. New York State Dept. of Financial Services

Here:

NY Order Denying PI Relief

Materials are here.

Wrongful Termination Suit against Gila River Indian Community Dismissed

Here are the materials in Sears v. Gila River Indian Community (D. Ariz.):

12 GRIC Motion to Dismiss

13 Sears Response

14 GRIC Reply

20 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

Federal Court Dismisses Miccosukee Tribe’s RICO Suit against Billy Cypress, Former Leaders & Former Lawyers

Here are the updated materials:

140 Lewis Tein Reply

143 Lehtinen Reply

144 Hernandez Reply

145 Cypress Motion to Strike

146 Cypress Reply

155 Miccosuke Response to Motion to Strike

281 DCT Order Granting Motion to Strike

282 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

“No one fights dirtier or more brutally than blood; only family knows its own weaknesses, the exact placement of the heart.” Whitney Otto, How to Make an American Quilt (1991). Whitney Otto’s quote seems a particularly apt description of the emotionally and politically charged litigation, occurring in multiple judicial venues, between the named parties, whom include the following.

Motions to dismiss were here.

Miccosukee’s responses were here.

Second amended complaint here.

Federal Government’s Motion to Dismiss Claims re: Sand Creek Massacre

Here:

US Motion to Dismiss

The complaint is here.

Arizona Supreme Court Declines to Review Shirk v. Lancaster — ISDEAA Immunity Case Favoring Tribal Interests

Here:

Arizona SCT Order

Petition for review briefs here.

Arizona COA materials here and here.

Trial court materials here:

(2008) 09.24.08 Order Granting MTD as to GRIC Dfndnts

2011 11.30.11 ME Under Advisement Ruling

Oklahoma SCT Overrules Bittle v. Bahe

Here is the opinion in Sheffer v. Buffalo Run Casino.

From the court’s syllabus:

Charles Sheffer, Jennifer Sheffer, and their minor son, J.S., were injured when their 18-wheeler tractor trailer collided with a rental vehicle leased to William Garris and driven by David Billups, both employees of Carolina Forge Company, L.L.C. Plaintiffs sued Carolina Forge on theories of respondeat superior and negligent entrustment. They also sued the Buffalo Run Casino, the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, and PTE, Inc. for dram-shop liability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Carolina Forge, finding as a matter of law Carolina Forge was not liable for its employees’ actions under a theory of respondeat superior and did not negligently entrust the rental vehicle to its employees. The trial court also dismissed, sua sponte, the Buffalo Run Casino, PTE, Inc., and the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, determining that injunctions issued by the Honorable Lee R. West in the Western District of Oklahoma in Case No. 10-CV-00050-W and Case No. 10-CV-01339-W, prohibited suit for any tort claims against a tribe or a tribal entity. Plaintiffs appealed both orders, and we retained the appeals. In Sheffer v. Carolina Forge Co., 2013 OK 48, 306 P.3d 544, we reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Carolina Forge and found issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on both the respondeat superior and negligent entrustment claims. In the present case, we find the Peoria Tribe is immune from suit in state court for compact-based tort claims because Oklahoma state courts are not courts of competent jurisdiction as the term is used in the model gaming compact. We also hold that because Congress has not expressly abrogated tribal immunity from private, state court dram-shop claims and because the Peoria Tribe and its entities did not expressly waive their sovereign immunity by applying for and receiving a liquor license from the State of Oklahoma, the tribe is immune from dram-shop liability in state court. The trial court’s dismissal of the Peoria Tribe and its entities is affirmed.