tribal courts – Page 115

Split Fifth Circuit Panel Affirms Tribal Civil Jurisdiction over Nonmember in Dolgencorp v. Miss. Choctaw

October 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher6 Comments

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

Dolgencorp, Inc. and Dollar General Corp. (collectively “Dolgencorp”) brought an action in the district court seeking to enjoin John Doe, a member of the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, and other defendants (collectively “the tribal defendants”) from adjudicating tort claims against Dolgencorp in the Choctaw tribal court. The district court denied Dolgencorp’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of the tribal defendants, concluding that the tribal court may properly exercise jurisdiction over Doe’s claims. Because we agree that Dolgencorp’s consensual relationship with Doe gives rise to tribal court jurisdiction over Doe’s claims under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 564-66 (1981), we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment.

Briefs are here.

Lower court decision and materials here.

Update in Federal Trade Commission v. Payday Financial (Martin Webb) — Defendants Ordered to Pay FTC More than $400K

October 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the new materials in Federal Trade Commission v. Payday Financial LLC (D. S.D.):

52 PF Motion for Summary J

58 FTC Response

60 PF Reply

94 FTC Motion for Summary J

103 PF Opposition

114 FTC Reply

117 DCT Order Denying PF Motion for Summary J

120 FTC Memorandum of Supplemental Authority

120-1 Exhibit A

120-3 Exhibit C

131 DCT Order Granting Partial Summary J to FTC

Materials from the complaint here.

Ninth Circuit Reinstates Indictment in Federal Gun Charge Case, with Fort Peck Tribal Court Conviction as Predicate for Offense

October 1, 2013October 3, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. First:

An excerpt from the court’s syllabus:

Reversing the district court’s dismissal of an indictment charging the defendant as a misdemeanant in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), the panel held that a misdemeanor conviction obtained in tribal court may qualify as a predicate offense to a § 922(g)(9) prosecution so long as the defendant was provided whatever right to counsel existed in the underlying misdemeanor proceeding.

The panel concluded that this result does not violate the Sixth Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Update: Critical commentary on this case by federal defender Jon Sands here.

Federal Court Rules in Favor of Pueblo of Santa Ana in Challenge to Alleged Waiver of State Court Immunity in Gaming Compact

September 26, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Nash (D. N.M.):

52 — Pueblo Motion for Summary J

55 — Judge Nash Response

63 — Pueblo Reply to Judge Nash

65 — Mendoza Response

69 — Pueblo Reply to Mendoza

90 — DCT Order

91 — Judgment

An excerpt:

Specifically, the Court hereby enters a declaration that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. (“IGRA”) does not authorize an allocation of jurisdiction from tribal court to state court over a personal injury claim arising from the allegedly negligent serving of alcohol on Indian land, and further that the New Mexico State District Court does not have jurisdiction in the case of Gina Mendoza, Michael Hart and Dominic Montoya v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Santa Ana Star Casino, CIV 2007-005711 (“underlying state court litigation”).

Prior federal court order and materials here.

Oklahoma SCT Overrules Bittle v. Bahe

September 26, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

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.

Updated Materials in Nooksack Disenrollment Appeal — Roberts v. Kelly

September 25, 2013September 25, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Roberts v Kelly – First Amended Complaint w Appendices

Roberts v Kelly Order Accepting First Amended Complaint

Roberts v. Kelly Declaration of Gabriel S. Galanda in Support of Motion for Contempt

Roberts v. Kelly Motion for Contempt Against Kelly Defendants

Roberts v. Kelly Motion for Reconsideration of Sua Sponte September 6, 2013 Order

Roberts v. Kelly Order Denying Motion for Contempt

Bellingham Herald: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/09/19/3212992/both-nooksack-tribal-factions.html

Al Jazeera America!: http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/live-news/2013/9/tribal-families-battleefforttorejectthem.html

SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day: Nebraska v. Elise M.

September 23, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

The petition of the day is:

Nebraska v. Elise M.

12-1278

Issue: (1) Whether the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901-63, prohibits a state court from considering the “best interests of the child” when determining whether “good cause” exists to defy the transfer of an ongoing child welfare case; and (2) whether ICWA requires a state court to treat a motion to terminate parental rights as a “new proceeding” for the purposes of determining whether “good cause” exists to defy the transfer of an ongoing child welfare case.

Possibly a candidate for a CVSG.

Article on Judge Thorne’s Retirement from the Bench

September 23, 2013September 23, 2013Kate Fort

Here.

As a side note, Judge Thorne spent the last few days in Montana, doing an incredible job encouraging the tribes and state to work together to find ways to achieve better outcomes for Indian kids. Given the work he plans on doing in his retirement, we think “retirement” should really be in quotes. Which is lucky for all of us.