California Court of Appeals — Fourth District

California Placement Preference Case Dismissed for Lack of Ripeness

Kate Fort

Here. Child was from White Earth, and both tribal counsel and expert witness argued for relative placement. Department argued mother did not have standing and forfeited the relative placement issue even though child was “not suitable for adoption” and ICWA applied. Court disagreed but still dismissed:

Here, although A.C. had earlier requested assessment as a caregiver for the children, she withdrew her request in May 2012. She was again referred to the relative assessment unit on June 19. The record does not indicate whether that referral, only one month before the hearing on review, had yet been finalized. The orders appealed from do not address that issue. Because the assessment was still pending at the time of the hearing, we conclude the issue is not ripe for appellate review.

Blatant Notice Disregard in California ICWA Case

Kate Fort

Here. The decision is unpublished. It isn’t just cases where the parent is unsure of their tribal affiliation where this is happening.

In August 2011, at the outset of this case, John told the social worker that he was “a member of the Mission Digueno Tribe[,] a band of the Kumeyaay Indians,” and had a roll number. John also said that he had “Native American Ancestry with the Chumash Tribe in the Santa Ynez reservation….” In his Parentage Inquiry, he declared he had “Chumash and Digueno” heritage. In his Parental Notification of Indian Status, he declared he might have Indian ancestry through a Kumeyaay Tribe and a “Mission Digueno / Chumash” band. In September, John’s sister gave the social worker the roll number shared by all family members.
The social worker sent incomplete ICWA notices to the tribes. Most of the notices listed the roll number only in connection with a relative, did not explain how that relative was related to Matthew and did not explain that the whole family shared the roll number. Most of the notices omitted known information that John and other paternal relatives had received medical and dental treatment at an Indian health clinic. Most of the notices listed a Chumash Tribe association only for the paternal great-grandmother.
None of the responses to the ICWA notices were positive. The court found that ICWA did not apply. In May 2013, the court terminated parental rights.

California Appellate Briefs in Employment Discrimination Suit against Morongo Casino Resort & Spa

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Chavez v. Morongo Casino Resort & Spa (Cal. App. 4th):

Chavez Opening Brief

Morongo Answer Brief

California Court of Appeals Decides Boundary Dispute Involving Trust Land

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Pereyma v. Donato:

D060610

Briefs are here.

Cal. Appellate Court Decides Contract Dispute Involving 29 Palms Enterprises Corporation (Updated)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the unpublished opinion in 29 Palms Enterprises Corp. v. Bardos:

29 Palms Enterprises v Bardos

An excerpt:

Plaintiff and respondent Twenty-Nine Palms Enterprises Corporation (Palms), a tribal corporation, sued defendant and appellant Cadmus Construction Co. (Cadmus), a sole proprietorship wholly owned and operated by Paul Bardos (Bardos) (1) to recover money paid to Cadmus, because it alleged Cadmus was an unlicensed contractor (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031),1 and (2) for unfair competition, in that Cadmus allegedly performed work requiring a contractor’s license while unlicensed (§ 17200). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Palms. Cadmus raises six contentions on appeal. First, Cadmus asserts section 7031 does not apply to contracts made with a tribal corporation for work done on tribal land. Second, Cadmus asserts the trial court erred by sustaining Palms’s objections to Cadmus’s evidence “en masse.” Third, Cadmus asserts there is a triable issue of fact as to whether it held a valid license. Fourth, Cadmus contends that if it was not properly licensed, then there is a triable issue of fact as to whether it satisfies the substantial compliance requirements. (§ 7031, subd. (e).) Fifth, Cadmus contends Palms is estopped from seeking recovery pursuant to the unlicensed contractor statute (§ 7031). We affirm the judgment.

UPDATE: Opinion certified for publication (11/8/2012):

E051769

Calif. COA Decides ICWA Placement Proximity Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion:

In re Anthony T

An excerpt:

Anthony T., a member of the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe, and his mother, Brooke H., a non-Indian, appeal an order placing Anthony in foster care with an Indian family. They contend the placement is not within “reasonable proximity” to the child’s home as required under title 25 United States Code section 1915, subdivision (b), and Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.31, subdivision (b). We reverse.

American Property Mgmt. Cal. SCT Petition for Review in Tribal Immunity Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the brief:

American Property Mgmt Petition for Review

Lower court materials here.

Briefs in California COA Case Involving Dispute over Improvements to Tribal Road Held in Trust

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Donato v. Pereyma (Cal. App.):

Donato Opening Brief

Pereyma Response Brief

Donato Reply Brief

from the opening brief:

Continue reading →

California Court of Appeals Decides Tribal Corporate Immunity Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in American Property Management Corp. v. Superior Court (with concurrence):

Cal. App. Opinion

An excerpt:

In 2003, Sycuan Tribal Development Corporation (STDC), a corporation chartered under Sycuan’s tribal laws, invested in the purchase of the U.S. Grant Hotel in downtown San Diego (the hotel) but created several layers of California limited liability companies to stand between it and the entity that took ownership of the hotel.

Specifically, U.S. Grant, LLC — a California limited liability company — purchased the hotel in 2003. U.S. Grant, LLC is wholly owned by its sole member Sycuan Investors – U.S. Grant, LLC (Sycuan Investors, LLC), a California limited liability company. Sycuan Investors, LLC, in turn, is wholly owned by its sole member American Property Investors – U.S. Grant, LLC (American Property Investors, LLC), a California limited liability company. American Property Investors, LLC is wholly owned by its sole member STDC. All three limited liability companies were organized in late 2003 in connection with the transaction to purchase the hotel.

People v. Shelton: Suppression of Evidence Obtained by Cabazon Band Casino Security Guard

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion (h/t Pechanga), affirming the suppression of the evidence because of an improper appeal.

The Cabazon Band’s amicus brief is here.