Utah Federal Court Holds Ute Tribe Still Owes $209K in Attorney Fees in Dispute with Former Contractor

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

304 Ute Motion for Stay

308 Becker Opposition to 303

309 Becker Opposition to 304

310 Jurrius Opposition to 304

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.

Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe Cert Petition

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.

Circuit split?

Lower court materials here.

Tenth Circuit Orders Tribal Court Exhaustion in Ute Dispute with Former Contractor

Here is the opinion in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe.

Briefs:

Ute Opening Brief

Becker Brief

Lawrence Brief

Ute Reply

Lower court order here:

136 DCT Order in 16-579

Briefs in a related appeal, No. 18-4013, are here:

Ute Opening Brief 18-4013

Lawrence Brief 18-4013

Becker Brief 18-4013

Other posts on these matters here.

Ute Tribe Sanctioned for Abuse of Judicial Process/Acting in Bad Faith

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

206 Tribe Motion to Quash

210 Opposition

211 Reply

221 DCT Order to Show Cause

228 Response to Order to Show Cause

234 Becker Memorandum re Tribe’s Documents

235 Becker Response to Order re Sanctions against Tribe

238 Jurrius Reply

243 Tribe Reply

244-1 Becker Surreply

260 DCt Order

261 DCT Order re Unsealing

261-1 Arbitration Statement of Claims

261-2 Jurrius Counterclaims

261-3 Tribe’s Response

261-4 Settlement Agreement

262 Becker Statement of Fees

263 Jurrius Statement of Fees

269 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

270 Tribe Motion to Reconsider 260

273 Tribe Objection to 263

274 Tribe Objection to 262

276 Opposition to 270

280 Response to 273

281 Reply in Support of 270

Prior post here.

Federal Judge Refuses to Sanction Attorney for Repeatedly Disparaging Tribal Court

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.

Federal Court Stays Becker v. Ute to Await Tribal Court Rulings

Here are the materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):

70 Becker Motion for PI

73 Ute Motion for Summary Judgment [preemption]

74 Ute Motion for Summary Judgment [illegality]

75 Ute Emergency Motion for TRO

84 Becker Opposition

86 Ute Opposition

88 Reply in Support of 75

91 Becker Reply

93 Ute Surreply

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.

Tenth Circuit Hands Ute Tribe a Pair of Jurisdictional Victories in Dispute with Former Contractor

Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe v. Lawrence:

Opinion

Opening Brief

Lawrence Answer Brief

Becker Answer Brief

Reply

Here are the materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe:

Opinion

Opening Brief

Lawrence Answer Brief

Becker Answer Brief

Reply

Prior posts here.

 

Ute Tribe Files in Federal Court to Prohibit Employment Claim in State Court

Download complaint in the matter of Ute Indian Tribe v. Honorable Lawrence, 16-cv-00579 (D. Utah)

State action is titled Lynn Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, et al., Case No. 140908394, Third District Court

Link to previous coverage here.