Here are the updated materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe (D. Utah):
297 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Sanctions Order
302 Ute Motion to Recover Costs
303 Ute Motion for Relief from Judgment
314 Ute Reply in Support of 304
315 DCT Order Granting Ute Motion to Recover Costs
Prior post on the attorney fee sanction against Ute here.
Prior post on the Tenth Circuit decision in this case favoring Ute here.
Here:
Questions presented:
Whether a federal court may force a non-consenting, non-Indian plaintiff to exhaust his claims in tribal court when the defendant tribe has expressly consented by contract to federal or state court jurisdiction and waived both sov- ereign immunity and tribal exhaustion.
Whether a state court may adjudicate a contractual dispute between a tribe and a non-Indian where the tribe has provided specific contrac- tual consent to state court jurisdiction; or in- stead, whether the Constitution or laws of the United States prohibit such exercises of state court jurisdiction unless the State has assumed general civil jurisdiction over tribal territory under Sections 1322 and 1326 of Title 25.
Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe.
Briefs:
Lower court order here:
Briefs in a related appeal, No. 18-4013, are here:
Other posts on these matters here.
Here are the new materials in the long-running Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):
205 Becker Notice of Intent to Subpoena
228 Response to Order to Show Cause
234 Becker Memorandum re Tribe’s Documents
235 Becker Response to Order re Sanctions against Tribe
261-1 Arbitration Statement of Claims
269 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
270 Tribe Motion to Reconsider 260
Prior post here.
Here are the relevant materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):
134 becker motion for sanctions
146 tribal parties motion for sanctions
154 dct order denying becker motion for sanctions
155 dct order denying tribal parties motion for sanctions
Other Becker related posts here. Posts in Ute Indian Tribe v. Lawrence here.
Here are the materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):
73 Ute Motion for Summary Judgment [preemption]
74 Ute Motion for Summary Judgment [illegality]
75 Ute Emergency Motion for TRO
101 Ute Motion to Reassign Case
102 DCt Chief Judge Order re 101
103:
Discussion and argument heard on the motions. After taking a recess, and for the reasons stated on the record, the court made the following rulings on the record:
The court DENIES 70 Mr. Becker’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction;
DENIES 71 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document;
DENIES 75 The Tribe’s Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Motion for Permanent Injunction; and
GRANTS 93 Tribe’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply.The court also stays the case and all remaining pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 72, 73 and 74). Should the tribal court decline jurisdiction, the court will then address the remaining motions. The parties are granted leave to file a motion to lift the stay if circumstances should change before resolution of both the tribal court and state court actions.
Prior posts here.
Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe v. Lawrence:
Here are the materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe:
Prior posts here.
Here is the opinion in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah Reservation.
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.