California Court of Appeals — Fourth District – Page 2

California Court of Appeals Affirms Contract Breach Judgment against Cabazon Band

June 16, 2016June 16, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.

An excerpt:

The indenture and note between the Bank and the Tribe were secured by a perfected security interest in the DAR, after being deposited into the Tribe’s custodial account with the Bank. The indenture agreement at issue here did not confer any authority, control, or responsibility to the bondholder or the Bank for the conduct of any gaming activity. It merely provided the Bank and the bondholder with a security interest in a specific bank account. It did not and could not control what was deposited into that custodial account. A contract creating a security interest in a custodial account does not convey authority or responsibility for the conduct of any gaming activity. Therefore, it does not violate the sole proprietary interest rule.

Only brief I’ve found: Wells Fargo’s Reply brief

Published ICWA Notice Case out of California

December 18, 2015December 18, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In re D.C.:

D068146

Three Recent California ICWA Cases

November 24, 2015Kate Fort

Reported case on notice, where the social service agency attempted to fix the notice issues while the case was on appeal. Fourth District remanded for proper notice.

An unreported case where the trial court refused to apply ICWA because of a lack of written communication from the tribe, though the agency received verbal confirmation of the children’s membership. The case was reversed, also by the Fourth District.

Finally, an unreported case using the “family lore” argument to find there was no notice necessary. Haven’t seen a family lore case in California since 2011. Those cases were all out of the Second District, while this one is out of the First.

California Court of Appeals Orders Depublication of Cosentino Opinion

September 24, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cosentino

Depublication briefs here, here, and here.

Opinion here.

Published California ICWA Opinion on QEW and Active Efforts

August 20, 2015Kate Fort

Here.

Among other things, this case demonstrates some of the confusion going on in the courts about WHEN certain provisions of ICWA are required. Must there be a qualified expert witness at disposition hearings? What if the court makes a finding about returning a child to a parent at a disposition hearing? And finally, who is responsible for getting QEW testimony?

(The answer to the last one is the State. Not the tribe, not the parent, and it’s not waive-able [though that happens] since it’s the evidentiary burden of the State to have a QEW who agrees with termination or foster care.)

Another Update in Cosentino v. Fuller Depublication Request

August 4, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Defendants’ Request for Depublication

Oppo to Viejas Band’s Depub Request

Opposition to Request of Defendants to Depublish

Opposition to Request of Group of 13

Prior depublication-related posts here and here.

Cal. COA opinion here.

Unpublished California Notice Case Cites 2015 BIA Guidelines

July 22, 2015Kate Fort3 Comments

Court reversed and remanded for ICWA notice compliance. Opinion here.

The recently updated “Guidelines for State Courts and Agencies in Indian Child Custody Proceedings” (Guidelines) provide that tribes have the sole jurisdiction and authority to determine whether a child is eligible for membership. (Guidelines, 80 Fed. Reg. 10146-02 (Feb. 25, 2015), § B.3(b) & (c), p. 10153.) Tribes that are not notified of dependency proceedings cannot assert their rights under ICWA. (In re Marinna J. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 731, 739.) “Under these circumstances, it would be contrary to the terms of the Act to conclude . . . that parental inaction could excuse the failure of the juvenile court to ensure that notice under the Act was provided to the Indian tribe named in the proceeding.” (Ibid.) Thus, parents in a dependency proceeding are permitted to raise ICWA notice issues on appeal even where no mention was made of the issue in the juvenile court. (In re Alice M. (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1189, 1195.) Accordingly, we reject the Agency’s assertion that Mother forfeited any ICWA issue when she failed to object to the juvenile court’s ICWA finding.

Additional Request to Depublish Cosentino v. Fuller

July 20, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here (from the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians):

Request for Depublication 07 14 15

Prior request for depublication here.

California Tribes Seeking Depublication of Cosentino v. Fuller

July 20, 2015July 20, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is the request to the California Supreme Court for depublication of Cosentino v. Fuller (Cal. Ct. App.) submitted by thirteen California Indian tribes:

Cosentino Request for Depublication – File Endorsed

Here’s an excerpt:

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s suit rests entirely on the quintessentially sovereign action of the Pechanga Gaming Commission: revocation of Plaintiff’s gaming license. Opinion, pp. 6-7. That action cannot be effected by Gaming Commissioners in their personal capacity — only a properly constituted Gaming Commission can revoke a gaming license. Indeed, Congress has recognized that regulation of gaming on tribal lands is central to tribal self-governance. 25 U.S.C. § 2701.

Even though it was “the official action of the [Tribe], following [Defendants’] votes, that caused [Plaintiff]’s alleged injury” (Imperial Granite, 940 F.2d at 1271), the Opinion appears to condition an officer’s immunity on the additional showing that the sovereign’s action fell within its authority and was benignly motivated. Specifically, the Opinion evaluated whether the Tribe’s Commission acted with a retaliatory motive and whether it “revoked [Plaintiff’s] license on a ground identified in the IGRA, the Tribal-State Compact, or the Pechanga Ordinance.” Opinion, pp. 16-17. But where, as here, a plaintiff challenges official action of the tribe, the “tribe’s immunity is not defeated by an allegation that it acted beyond its powers.” Imperial Granite Co., 940 F.2d at 1271. The Opinion invites courts and litigants to disregard this firmly established protection of sovereign action under the guise of a “masked official capacity suit[].” Pistor, 2015 WL 3953448, at *5.

Here are previous TurtleTalk posts on this matter:

https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/california-appellate-court-issues-slightly-modified-opinion-in-cosentino-v-fuller/

https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2015/06/18/california-tribes-seek-rehearing-or-depublication-of-official-immunity-ruling/

https://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/california-appeals-court-holds-pechanga-casino-officials-may-be-sued-in-employment-action/