Here.
ICT: More on Cobell Lawyers/NARF Fee Dispute
Here.
Here.
Here is today’s ICT article.
Materials referenced in the article are here:
The Sixth Circuit dismissed the Harvest Institute Freedman Federation’s claim against the Cobell v. Salazar settlement:
The Harvest plaintiffs claim that the Freedmen were wrongfully excluded from ownership of the IIM Accounts due to racism, and that it perpetuates racial discrimination for Congress to not address their claims at the same time that it addresses the claims of the Cobell class. Along with their Complaint, the Harvest plaintiffs moved the district court for a temporary restraining order; the United States responded by filing Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, respectively.
Briefs are here.
An excerpt:
This is an appeal from the approval of a class action settlement agreement related to the Secretary of the Interior’s breach of duty to account for funds held in trust for individual Native Americans. Class member Kimberly Craven challenges the fairness of the settlement, contending principally that an impermissible intra-class conflict permeates the scheme to compensate class members for surrendering their established right to injunctive relief and that this conflict undermines the commonality, cohesiveness, and fairness required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process. The record, however, fails to confirm either the existence of the purported intra-class conflict or a violation of due process. Rather, the record confirms that the two plaintiff classes possess the necessary commonality and adequate representation to warrant certification, and that the district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion in certifying the two plaintiff classes in the settlement or in approving the terms of the settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Rule 23(e). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment approving the class settlement agreement.
Here.
This line from Judge Tatel to Craven’s attorney early in the argument must have the appellees concerned:
you sold me, you have a good case [page 4, lines 21-22]
Here.
Here is the government’s reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss:
You must be logged in to post a comment.