tribal courts – Page 114

This is an original garnishment action brought in federal court pursuant to a state statute to enforce a tribal court judgment. Doc. 6. An action for a writ of garnishment filed in federal district court as an independent action does not arise under federal law; it arises under state law. See Berry v. McLemore, 795 F.2d 452, 456 (5th Cir. 1986) (“First, subject matter jurisdiction as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not exist, because an action for a writ ofgarnishment arises from state law, not federal law. “). Even when taking all the facts pleaded in the Affidavit as true, this action does not arise under federal law and federal question jurisdiction is not proper.

News Update on Nooksack Disenrollments

October 19, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Materials to be posted later.

NAICJA Also Honors Judge Richard Blake (Hoopa) with Judicial Excellence Award

October 10, 2013October 10, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Miigwetch to Carrie Garrow.

NAICJA Recognizes Michael Petoskey With Lifetime Achievement Award; Dean Stacy Leeds with Service Award

October 10, 2013October 10, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Kate Fort, Mike Petoskey, and Jill Tompkins (miigwetch to Dylan Miner for designing the drum).

A more regal Mike…

More pics as we get them…..

And Dean Leeds waits to accept her award from Judge Amanda Rockman:

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

October 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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.