Self v. Cher-Ae Heights Indian Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria [immovable property exception]


Cert Petition

Lower court materials here.


State Amicus Brief

Seneca County Amicus

Brief in Opposition

California COA Dismisses Coyote Valley Band Appeals under Disentitlement Doctrine

Here are the materials in Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians:

A156459 [opinion]

Findleton Brief A156459

Findleton Brief A158171 A158172 A158173

Tribe Brief A156459

Tribe Brief A158171 A158172 A158173

Tribe Brief A159823

Tribe Reply A156459

Tribe Reply A158171 A158172 A158173

California COA Rejects Immovable Property Exception to Tribal Immunity

Here is the opinion in Self v. Cher-AE Heights Indian Community of the Trinidad Rancheria:

California COA Opinion


Opening Brief

Response Brief


California SCT & COA Materials in Huber Tax Case

Here are the materials in Huber v. People ex rel. Becerra (Cal.):


And in People ex rel. Becerra v. Huber (Cal. Ct. App.) [we posted materials here]:




California Appellate Court Holds State Taxes Imposed on Tribal Member Not Preempted

Here are the materials in People ex rel. Becerra v. Huber (Cal. Ct. App.):








California COA Reinstates Lawsuit against Tribal Lawyers

Here is the unpublished opinion in Fernandez v. Marston:

Fernandez v Martson

An excerpt:

Two unwitting pawns in a bitter, protracted leadership dispute between rival factions of an Indian tribe, appellants Shawn Fernandez and Brian Auchenbach, took part in a paramilitary raid of the tribe’s casino offices in order to oust a competing tribal faction of possession. The two men believed they had been lawfully deputized as police officers for the tribe, had full legal authority to engage in the operation, and would not face any adverse legal consequences or criminal charges as a result. They believed this, because attorneys for the tribal faction that hired them as police officers assured them it was true.

It wasn’t. Contrary to counsel’s assurances, Fernandez and Auchenbach were arrested by the Madera County Sheriff’s Department, along with the others who participated in the raid, and were charged with 29 felony counts. The two men then brought this lawsuit against the attorneys involved, alleging causes of action for attorney malpractice, negligence and fraud, premised on the attorneys’ false assurances to them concerning the validity of the tribal police force that had hired them and the legality of the armed raid they took part in.

The trial court granted the attorneys’ motion to strike their complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.161). We reverse, because this lawsuit does not arise from any activity protected by that statute.