Press coverage here.
Previous coverage here.
The order is here:
Here are the new materials in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District (C.D. Cal.):
62-1 US Complaint in Intervention
News coverage here.
Prior post with tribe’s complaint here.
And the DOJ media release: Continue reading
Here is a new class action filed in California, Labajo v. First International Bank & Trust (C.D. Cal.), alleging involvement by Miami Tribe and Santee Sioux:
And another First International-related suit, Graham v. BMO Harris Bank NA (D. Conn.):
Here:
Oral argument audio here.
Lower court (C.D. Cal.) materials here:
7-1 Chemehuevi Motion for Summary J
Here are the materials in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Great Plains Lending LLC, Mobiloans LLC, and Plain Green LLC (C.D. Cal.):
1 CFPB CID Enforcement Petition
UPDATE:
Here is the complaint:
An excerpt:
This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1362 and 1367, in that plaintiffs claims arise under the laws of the United States, including federal common law, plaintiff is an American Indian tribe with a governing body duly recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as maintaining government-to-government relations with the United States and exercising jurisdiction over the federal trust lands of the Cahuilla Indian Reservation in the unincorporated territory of Riverside County, California, near the town of Anza; and plaintiff’s claims that are not within the district court’s original jurisdiction are so related to the claims within the district court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. The specific laws of the United States under which plaintiff’s claims arise include, but are not limited to, the Mission Indian Relief Act of January 12, 1891 (26 Stat. 712) (“MIRA”); 25 U.S.C. § 415 and regulations promulgated thereunder; the federal Clean Water Act, 33 USC 1251, et seq. and regulations promulgated thereunder; and the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq. and regulations promulgated thereunder. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the Tribe’s state-law claims for trespass pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, in that those claims arise out of the same facts and circumstances as do the Tribe’s claims cognizable under the Court’s original jurisdiction.
Here is the complaint in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District (C.D. Cal.):
Here are the newest materials in United States v. Kovall (C.D. Cal.):
Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Indictment
No order yet, but news coverage here.
Cabazon Band has removed the state court complaint to federal court (Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (C.D. Cal.)):
Cabazon Notice of Removal [notice only]
Cabazon Notice of Removal Part 1 [notice plus attachments, each are 100+ page docs]
Cabazon Notice of Removal Part 2
Cabazon Notice of Removal Part 3
Cabazon Notice of Removal Part 4
Cabazon Notice of Removal Part 5
An excerpt from the notice:
5. This action “seeks to specifically enforce certain covenants of the Tribe under the Trust Indenture[.]” Exh. “A” (Complaint) ¶ 1. This dispute potentially involves claims under Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, and, accordingly, invokes federal jurisdiction. For example, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin held last year that federal subject matter jurisdiction was established on the face of the complaint because a claim against a Tribe for breach of a Trust Indenture is not a routine contract dispute, and involved potential application of IGRA:Wells Fargo’s claim for breach of the Indenture does not present a routine contract dispute, but rather a specific issue under a highly regulated area of federal law. See Gaming World, 317 F.3d at 848. (“since this case raises issues under the extensive regulatory framework of IGRA, it is not a routine contract dispute.”). Wells Fargo’s action on the Indenture and Bonds necessarily raise federal questions concerning whether the Indenture is a management contract within the meaning of the IGRA and, if so, whether the Tribe’s waiver of sovereign immunity is valid. Wells Fargo’s complaint therefore invokes federal jurisdiction[.]
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Sokagon Chippewa Community, 787 F. Supp. 2d 867, 875 (E.D. Wis. 2011).
You must be logged in to post a comment.