tribal courts – Page 57

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Judicial Postings

February 27, 2017February 28, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here (PDF):

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe is seeking a Full Time Associate Judge and a Part-time Deputy Judge

Applicants must possess their Juris Doctorate from an accredited Law School with prior study and or practice in the field of Indian Law. Be a licensed attorney to practice in the State of Minnesota or any other state. Salary is DOQ.

Please submit a cover letter with your resume, juris doctorate, and Attorney License to:

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
Jacquelyn Wright
Court Administrator
190 Sailstar Drive NE
Cass Lake, MN 56633

Or email to: jacquelyn.wright@llojibwe.org

Closing Date is March 8, 2017 at 4:30 pm

Federal Court Again Dismisses Challenge to Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Court Jurisdiction

February 24, 2017February 27, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Acres v. Blue Lake Rancheria (N.D. Cal.):

An excerpt:

Plaintiff James Acres seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Blue Lake Rancheria Tribe (“Tribe”), the Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Court (“Tribal Court”) and its Chief Judge, Lester Marston, alleging that the Tribal Court has conducted itself in bad faith in asserting jurisdiction over him in an underlying contractual fraud case because Judge Marston refused to recuse himself from the case and misrepresented his relationship with the Tribe. Judge Marston has now recused himself from the Tribal Court case and appointed the Hon. James Lambden, a retired California Court of Appeal Justice with no prior connection to the Tribe, to preside over the matter. Given Judge Marston’s recusal and the appointment of a neutral judge, there is insufficient evidence of bad faith for the exception to apply. Acres does not meet any of the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement. He must exhaust his tribal remedies before bringing an action of this kind in federal court. The Tribe’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

Alaska Tribal Court Selected for Dependency Court Project

February 23, 2017February 23, 2017Victoria Sweet

The Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska Child Dependency Court under the leadership of Judge Debra O’Gara been selected by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) as one of six new courts to join their Implementation Sites Project, which helps to improve outcomes for abused and neglected children and their families.

Full press release available here alaska-implementation-pr-final-02232017.

From the release:

The NCJFCJ Implementation Sites Project, which is funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, provides child abuse and neglect courts with training, technical assistance and support to guide program improvement, sustainability and performance. As part of their involvement in this project, Implementation Sites are expected to implement meaningful change, evaluate progress as well as share challenges and successes with other courts across the country.

“Tribal justice systems are growing and evolving to address to the needs and issues of tribal communities. It is vitally important that tribal courts continue to learn, benefit, and share information through the NCJFCJ’s Implementation Site Project,” said Nikki Borchardt Campbell, Executive Director of the National American Indian Judges Court Association.

The Central Council Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska Child Dependency Court, in Juneau, Alaska, began last year through an extensive partnership with the Tribal and Youth Services and the State of Alaska Office of Children Services. In the last decade, the Tribe’s court system has grown quickly beginning with child welfare including child support and paternity cases. Recently, the Tribal court has begun to hear domestic violence protection orders, custody, divorce, guardianship, and adoption cases. The Tribal court is also developing a juvenile wellness court, focused primarily on early intervention and prevention for youth whom are at risk of being involved in the criminal justice system.

“Being a part of the NCJFCJ’s Implementation Sites Project will not only help grow and expand our Tribal court in the child welfare area of services, but would greatly benefit our court’s needs for technical assistance, practical tools, and collaborative assessment,” said the Honorable Debra O’Gara, lead judge of the project.

“We look forward to collaborating with the NCJFCJ to strengthen the court’s infrastructure through data collection, forms and templates, staff training, and greater access to current research and trends in child and family needs to build up the infrastructure to handle the growing case load. I firmly believe that we have much to learn from the knowledge and experience of other judges and courts around the nation on how to best expand and improve the court’s outcomes for our children and families.”

Fletcher on Statutory Divestiture of Tribal Sovereignty

February 20, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

“Statutory Divestiture of Tribal Sovereignty” is now available on SSRN, here. Forthcoming in the Federal Lawyer, April 2017.

The abstract:

The Supreme Court’s non-decision in Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians is evidence not only of disagreement on tribal civil jurisdiction but perhaps also uncertainty in how to analyze divestiture of tribal sovereignty. Most scholars (including myself) have described the Court’s behavior in tribal sovereign authority cases as one of judicial supremacy, in that the Court merely makes policy choices based on its own ideological views of tribal power. That is a mistake. Persuaded by the federal government’s argument in Dollar General, I now argue that the proper analysis rests with federal statutes. Indian law practitioners can and should reconsider the Court’s prior decisions in this vein, as the best ones already do, and analyze tribal sovereign powers in the paradigm of statutory divestiture rather than judicial supremacy.

North Dakota SCT Awards Attorney Fees to Defendants in Indian Country Tort Claim Brought in State Court

February 17, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Tillich v. Bruce.

An excerpt:

Don Bruce, Vinier Davis, and Linda Davis (“Defendants”) appeal from a judgment granting their motion to dismiss and denying their request for attorney fees. We reverse the district court’s denial of the Defendants’ request for attorney fees under N.D.C.C. § 28-26-01(2) and remand for calculation of attorney fees based upon accepted factors and order the district court award attorney fees to the Defendants.

Briefs:

1.	Tillich v. Bruce – Appellee Brief
	*Abstract:* Argument date: Oct. 2016. Topic: Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.). Judge: Hon. M. Richard Geiger.

2.	Tillich v. Bruce – Appellant Brief
	*Abstract:* Argument date: Oct. 2016. Topic: Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.). Judge: Hon. M. Richard Geiger.

3.	Tillich v. Bruce – Reply Brief
	*Abstract:* Argument date: Oct. 2016. Topic: Torts (Negligence, Liab., Nuis.). Judge: Hon. M. Richard Geiger.

Cedarville Rancheria Prevails in Tribal Exhaustion Matter

February 16, 2017February 17, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Knighton v. Cedarville Rancheria of Northern Paiute Indians (E.D. Cal.):

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Duanna Knighton, the former Tribal Administrator for defendant Cedarville Rancheria of Northern Paiute Indians (“the Tribe”), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the Tribe, Cedarville Rancheria Tribal Court (“Tribal Court”), and Tribal Court Judge Patricia R. Lenzi (“Tribal Judge Lenzi”) (collectively “defendants”) to avoid Tribal Court jurisdiction over claims that she defrauded the Tribe and breached her fiduciary duties to it. Defendants move to dismiss Knighton’s complaint because the Tribal Court has jurisdiction. I agree that it has both regulatory and adjudicative authority over its former employee under the facts alleged; accordingly, it has subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants’ motion is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE.

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion in Claims involving Interpretation of Navajo Insurance Law

February 13, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Progressive Advanced Insurance Company v. Worker (D. Ariz.):

An excerpt:

The Court determines that the tribal courts of the Navajo Nation have a colorable or plausible claim to jurisdiction over this matter. See Elliott, 566 F.3d at 848. Like the insurer in Stump, Progressive issued an insurance policy that listed a tribal member as a named insured and covered vehicles that were kept on tribal lands. Unlike the insurer in Stump, however, Progressive never mailed anything to an address on tribal lands. To the extent that factor is dispositive, it may be that the tribal court lacks jurisdiction. But this is a question that must be answered first by the tribal courts of the Navajo Nation. See LaPlante, 480 U.S. at 16 (explaining that the tribal court should have “‘the first opportunity to evaluate the factual and legal bases for the challenge’ to its jurisdiction”). An analysis of the Todecheene decision does not change this conclusion. In that case, the Ninth Circuit ultimately determined that it was not clear that the tribal courts plainly lacked jurisdiction. Todecheene, 488 F.3d at 1216. This Court reaches the same conclusion here.

Nooksack State Superior Court Litigation Update

February 6, 2017Sarah M Donnelly

Whatcom County has dismissed Rabang’s trespass suit for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed new suit based on intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Downloads(PDF):