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.
Central District of California
Wells Fargo v. Cabazon Band — Enforcement of Trust Indenture
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).
Suit Challenging Chevron Solar Energy Project Affecting Sacred Sites Dismissed
Here are the materials in La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Committee v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior (C.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Dismissing La Cuna Complaint
Our previous post in this case is here.
Gary Kovall Indictment (29 Palms Bribery Case)
Article III Standing Order in Sacred Sites Challenge to Chevron Energy Solutions Lucerne Solar Project
Here is the opinion in La Cuna De Aztlan Sacred Sites Prot. Circle Advisory Comm. v. United States DOI (C.D. Cal.):
Federal Court Order Dismissing City of Temecula’s Claims against Pechanga
Here is the order:
Briefing in City of Temecula v. Pechanga Band Gaming Dispute
Santa Ynez Indians Sue IRS Over Tax Refund re: Gaming Per Cap Withholding
Here is the complaint, filed in Central District of California: Santa Ynez v US Complaint.
An excerpt:
11. During 2003 and 2004, Santa Ynez made “per capita” payments to its members from revenues derived from gaming activities. Federal law, at 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(3)(D), makes such payments subject to federal income taxation and 26 U.S.C. § 3402(r) make such payments subject to federal withholding requirements.
12. During 2003 and 2004, Santa Ynez failed to withhold, or underwithheld, federal taxes on payments made to some tribal members.
13. The IRS later conducted an audit of Santa Ynez for those years and assessed taxes, interest and penalties against the Tribe for 2003 and 2004.
14. On or about May 5, 2006, Santa Ynez paid the IRS $1,041,745.11 for tax year 2003 and $2,891,865.76 for tax year 2004 in full satisfaction of all amounts ostensibly owed under the audit.
15. Upon information and belief, the IRS received and credited the Tribe’s tax payments on or about May 10, 2006.
16. Subsequent to making its May, 2006 tax payments to the IRS, the Tribe determined that all, or virtually all, of the tribal members whose taxes had not been withheld, or had been underwithheld, had reported and fully paid their federal income taxes for years 2003 and 2004. As a result, the Tribe overpaid its withholding tax obligation for years 2003 and 2004.
Materials in FLSA/Tribal Immunity Case
Looks like an interesting case — whether a tribe is liable for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act in allegedly failing to properly pay overtime wages in a TANF program run by the tribal government (the answer is no).
Here are the materials in Noriega v. Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe (C.D. Cal.):
DCT Order to Dismiss Noriega Complaint
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.