Ninth Circuit Briefs in EEOC v. Peabody Western Coal

Here:

EEOC Opening Brief

Federal Appellee Brief

Navajo Answer Brief

Peabody Coal Answer Brief

Reply TK EEOC Reply

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Amended Complaint in Spokane Tribal Member Trust Breach Case re: Uranium Mining

Here are the updated materials in Villegas v. United States (E.D. Wash.):

DCT Order Granting US Motion

US Motion

Villegas Response

US Reply

Prior materials are here and here.

Most Claims Dismissed in Quapaw Tribe v. US Trust Breach Action

Here are the materials in Quapaw Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

DCT Order

US Motion to Dismiss

Quapaw Response

US Reply

An excerpt:

Plaintiff, the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma, is a federally recognized Indian nation. The Quapaw Tribe commenced this action on September 11, 2012 by filing a complaint for money damages arising from Defendant’s alleged breach of fiduciary and trust obligations owed to the Quapaw Tribe. The complaint contains three causes of action.

On November 13, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for partial dismissal of the complaint, asserting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or that Plaintiff had failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, Defendant requested that the Court order Plaintiff to file a more definite statement of its claims. Defendant excepted from its motion Plaintiff’s claims for annuity payments under the Treaty of 1833 and leasing claims for the Quapaw Industrial Park. Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion on December 28, 2012, and Defendant filed a reply on January 11, 2013. The Court heard oral argument on June 4, 2013.

Under Rule 8 of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”), a pleading must include “a short and plain statement” of the basis for jurisdiction and the plaintiff’s claims, as well as a demand for the relief sought. For the reasons explained below, Plaintiff’s complaint generally meets the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8, and therefore, Defendant’s motion for a more definite statement is denied. However, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second and third causes of action, as they are barred by the statute of limitations.

Some Claims against US Dismissed in Quapaw Tribal Members Trust Breach Action

Here are the materials in Goodeagle v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

DCT Order

US Partial Motion to Dismiss

Goodeagle Response

US Reply

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs in this case are Grace M. Goodeagle, Thomas Charles Bear, Edwina Faye Busby, Phyllis Romick Kerrick, Jean Ann Lambert, Florence Whitecrow Mathews, A rdi na Revard Moore, Tamara Anne Romick Parker, and Fran Wood, all of whom are enrolled members of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs commenced this action on June 28, 2012 by filing a complaint for money damages arising from Defendant’s alleged breach of fiduciary and trust obligations owed to the Quapaw Tribe and its members. The complaint contains eight causes of action.

On August 27, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for partial dismissal of the complaint, asserting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or that Plaintiffs had failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, Defendant requested that the Court order Plaintiffs to file a more definite statement of their claims. Defendant limited its motion to the third, fifth, sixth, and eighth causes of action, and did not challenge the first, second, fourth, and seventh causes of action. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion on November 26, 2012, and Defendant filed a reply on December 23, 2012. The Court heard oral argument on June 4, 2013.

For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs’ complaint generally meets the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) to show “a short and plain statement” of the basis for jurisdiction and Plaintiffs’ claims, as well as a demand for the relief sought. Thus, the Court denies Defendant’s request for Plaintiffs to file a more definite statement of their claims as to the third cause of action. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to the extent the third cause of action is meant to apply to more than losses under actual leases. That cause of action is not timely as to “hypothetical leases” where town lots might have been leased but were not. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action, as the consequential harm to Plaintiffs’ land from the mining activities does not constitute a continuing trespass, and therefore the claim is untimely. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action alleges mismanagement of trust assets, and also is untimely. Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action is not ripe for adjudication, and therefore dismisses it without prejudice.

Flute v. United States: Suit by Sand Creek Massacre Descendants for Accounting of Promised Funds

Here:

Flute Complaint

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs file this Complaint seeking an accounting of those monies the United States of America solemnly agreed to pay to each of Plaintiffs’ ancestors as reparations for a massacre of Native American citizens at Sand Creek, Colorado by members of the federal army.

 

Assistant Secretary’s Decision in Pala Band Disenrollment Dispute

Here:

AS-IA Pala Decision.6.12.2013

Lac Courte Oreilles Band Sues IHS for Contract Support Costs

Here is the complaint in Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. United States (D. D.C.):

Complaint

Fletcher Statement to the Secretarial Commission on Indian Trust Administration and Reform

The Commission honored me with an invitation to submit a statement and present it at their April Nashville meeting, but I was unable to attend. However, my statement is available at SSRN here.

Update in Federal Trespass Action at Makah (U.S. v. Ray)

The federal court, after ordering the United States DOJ to exhaust tribal court remedies (an order that apparently made the government’s attorneys ornery), granting partial summary judgment to the government.

Here are the new materials in United States v. Ray (W.D. Wash.):

DCT Order Granting Partial Summary J

US Motion for Partial Summary J

US Motion to Lift Stay

And the Makah tribal court materials:

Makah Tribal Court Order

US Petition for Determination of Makah Tribal Law

The post on the federal court’s requirement that the government seek a tribal court determination of tribal law is here.

The underlying complaint is here.

Reid Chambers Materials before the Interior Trust Commission’s Nashville Meeting Next Week

Here:

Enforcing the Federal TrustResponsibility – RPC – 4-29-13 (2)

Rocky Mountain Mineral LawFoundation (9-27-05) – Compatibility of the Federal Trust Responsibility (2)

Solicitor Krulitz_s letter toJustice on trust responsibility (2)

USDOI Order No. 3215 – Principlesfor the Discharge of the Secretarys Trust Reponsibility (2)

Here is the trust commission’s website.