Cahuilla Band of Indians v. Davis Complaint for Trespass

Here is the complaint:

1 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.

Agua Caliente Band v. Riverside County Complaint over Taxes on On-Rez Lessees

Here is the complaint in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Riverside County (C.D. Cal.):

Complaint

News coverage here.

Agua Caliente Sues for Water Adjudication

Here is the complaint in Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District (C.D. Cal.):

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (conformed)

Federal Court Refuses to Dismiss Bribery Charges against Former 29 Palms Attorney

Here are the newest materials in United States v. Kovall (C.D. Cal.):

Omnibus Motion to Dismiss Indictment

US Opposition

Omnibus Reply

No order yet, but news coverage here.

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

 

Chevron Motion to Dismiss

Plaintiffs Opposition

Our previous post in this case is here.

Gary Kovall Indictment (29 Palms Bribery Case)

Here:

Kovall et al Indictment

We noted the press coverage here.

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.):

DCT Order on Standing

Federal Defendants Motion to Dismiss

La Cuna Opposition

Federal Defendants Reply

Federal Court Order Dismissing City of Temecula’s Claims against Pechanga

Here is the order:

DCT Order Dismissing Temecula Complaint

Briefing in City of Temecula v. Pechanga Band Gaming Dispute

Here are the materials:

Pechanga Motion to Dismiss

Temecula Opposition

Pechanga Reply

The complaint is here.

News coverage from Pechanga.net.