Federal Court Rejects Immunity Defense in Tribal Payday Lending Matter

Here are the relevant materials in Brice v. Stinson (N.D. Cal.):

182 Motion for Summary Judgment

197 Opposition

216 Reply

236 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on defendants’ third affirmative defense; that some defendants are protected by or some claims extinguished by tribal immunity. In their opposition, defendants admit they personally “are not entitled to assert or invoke sovereign immunity as a defense to these claims” but nonetheless argue plaintiffs’ litigation “of these claims against shareholders of entities providing contractual services to those lenders is a significant infringement on the sovereignty of the tribes. . . . .” Dkt. No. 197 at 22. Defendants miss the point. The claims here hinge on the personal conduct of the defendants. While that conduct is based in significant part on the services defendants personally engaged in or approved to be provided to the Tribes, the claims do not impede on the sovereignty of the Tribes where the Tribes are not defendants in this case and no Tribal Entities remain. Absent apposite caselaw or facts showing how this action “interferes with the purpose or operation of a federal policy regarding tribal interests,” tribal immunity is irrelevant to this action.

Fourth Circuit Denies Enforcement of Tribal Payday Lending Arbitration and Governing Law Provisions in Two Decisions

Here are the materials in Gibbs v. Haynes Investments LLC:


Gibbs Brief

Haynes Brief

NAFOA Amicus Brief


American Association for Justice Amicus Brief

Here are the materials in Gibbs v. Sequoia Capital Operations LLC:


Sequoia Brief

NAFOA Amicus Brief

Gibbs Brief


Sixth Circuit Briefs in Sovereign Lending Case Involving Chippewa Cree Tribe

Here are the briefs in Swiger v. Rosette:

NAFOA Amicus Brief


Lower court materials in Swiger v. Rosette (E.D. Mich.):

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Consumer Financial Protection Board v. Great Plains Lending


Great Plains Lending Opening Brief

CFPB Answer Brief

Great Plains Lending Reply Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Moves against Three Tribal Payday Lenders UPDATED

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

2 CFPB 3-19-14 Memo

3 CFPB Declaration

6 CFPB Show Cause Order


14 Respondents Joint Opposition

22 CFPB Reply

25 Respondents Joint Surreply

28 DCT Order

Montana SCT Reverses Termination of Parental Rights because of ICWA Procedural Violations

Here is the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling in In re K.B.:



Mother appeared with counsel at the termination hearing and contested the termination of her parental rights, suggesting instead that the State be granted a long-term guardianship of the children. The Tribe did not appear. Mother’s attorney informed the court:

I don’t think alcoholism is a reason to terminate under the Indian Child Welfare Act. My client has been making visits. My client is employed. And my client has been going to group care, in regard to an alcohol issue. The Indian Child Welfare Act does not encourage  termination regarding alcoholism. . . .

Because counsel could not support his client’s position with a specific citation to ICWA, the court responded that it could not consider counsel’s objection: “I’m saying, for the record, to the Montana Supreme Court and to you, frankly, I can’t consider an objection on legal authority that’s not cited to the Court.”

And the briefs:





BankFirst v. Ginsburg — Suit between Lender and Gaming Developer

The District of Minnesota denied a change in venue sought by a Florida gaming developer in a suit involving a gaming-related loan. The developer works for Chippewa Cree Community Development Corporation, of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation.

Here is the order and the underlying complaint: