tribal courts – Page 102

The Michigan Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum is established. The membership of the forum shall consist of: the chief tribal judge of each of Michigan’s 12 federally recognized tribes, or their designated alternate judges, with membership to be expanded to accommodate any new federally recognized tribes; and 12 state court judges (or the same number as there are tribal judges), who will be appointed by the Michigan Supreme Court from among a pool of currently serving or retired Michigan judges or justices. In making appointments, the Court will consider geographic proximity to the tribes, Indian Child Welfare Act and MIFPA case load dockets, and current involvement with tribal court relations. The forum shall then pursue participation from federal judges and officials.

State bar post here.

Bond Reformation/Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter: Stifel v. LCO

June 23, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated v. Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin (W.D. Wis.):

1 Stifel Complaint

10 LCO Motion to Dismiss or Stay

13 LCO Tribal Court Motion to Dismiss or Stay

14 Stifel Response

18 LCO Tribal Court Reply

19 LCO Reply

25 Stifel Motion for PI

29 Joint Stipulation re Stay of Tribal Court Proceedings

30 DCT Order Allowing Dismissal of Prior Motions wo Prejudice

38 Stifel Motion for Summary J

44 LCO Opposition

49 Stifel Reply

76 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc. (“Stifel”) seeks equitable reformation of its Bond Purchase Agreement with defendant Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin (the “Band”), as well as a declaratory judgment that the Band may not proceed to sue Stifel in a currently-pending action in Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Court. Before the court now is plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on both claims. (Dkt.# 37.) Based on the undisputed facts of record, the court holds that Stifel is entitled to reformation of the Bond Purchase Agreement, but also concludes that the Band may proceed with its pending claims against Stifel in Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Court. Although Stifel has had ample opportunity to do so already, because the Band did not affirmatively move for summary judgment, the court will give Stifel yet another opportunity to proffer additional evidence, if any, that the forum selection clause in the Bond Purchase Agreement clearly precludes the Band from proceeding in Tribal Court.

Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians Cert Petition

June 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Dollar General Cert Petition

Questions presented:

Whether Indian tribal courts have jurisdiction to adjudicate civil tort claims against nonmembers, including as a means of regulating the conduct of nonmembers who enter into consensual relationships with a tribe or its members?

Lower court materials here.

The court also voted 9-5 to deny the en banc petition: CA5 Order Denying Dolgencorp En Banc Petition

En banc petition materials here.

Panel materials here.

Lower court decision and materials here.