Court of Federal Claims – Page 14

Order Denying Summary Judgment on Pooling Claims in Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States

August 29, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order:

J-2011-08-26 330 opinion on pooling & disbursement MPSJs

Some of the language here is striking, with the court apoplectic about the government’s continued demand that the court recognize its view that the trust responsibility be winnowed down to almost nothing:

Defendant would have this court blithely accept what so many courts have rejected – that for the breach of a fiduciary duty to be actionable in this court, that duty must be spelled out, in no uncertain terms, in a statute or regulation. But to conclude this, this court would have to perform a logic-defying feat of legal gymnastics.

That routine would commence with a full jurisprudential gainer – a twisting, backwards maneuver that would allow the court to ignore cases like White Mountain Apache and Mitchell II that have relied upon the common law to map the scope of enforceable fiduciary duties established by statutes and regulations. The court would then need to vault over Cheyenne-Arapaho and a soaring pyramid of other precedents, all of which have found defendant’s argument wanting. Next, the court would be called upon to handspring to the conclusion that Congress’ repeated legislative efforts to ensure the safe investment of tribal funds were mostly for naught – because, if defendant is correct, the provisions enacted were generally not perspicuous enough to create enforceable duties and, even where specific enough to do so, left interstices in which defendant could range freely. Indeed, while egging the court on, defendant never quite comes to grip with the fact that if the government’s fiduciary duties are limited to the plain dictates of the statutes themselves, such duties are not really “fiduciary” duties at all. See Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 504 (1996) (“[i]f the fiduciary duty applied to nothing more than activities already controlled by other specific legal duties, it would serve no purpose”). Taken to its logical dismount, defendant’s view of the controlling statutes would not only defeat the twin claims at issue, but virtually all the investment claims found in the tribal trust cases, few of which invoke haec verba specific language in a statute or regulation. Were the court convinced even to attempt this tumbling run, it almost certainly would end up flat on its back and thereby garner from the three judges reviewing its efforts a combined score of “zero” – not coincidentally, precisely the number of decisions that have adopted defendant’s position.

Two Shields v. United States — Breach of Trust Complaint re: Fort Berthold Oil Reserves

August 26, 2011August 25, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in Two Shields v. United States (Fed. Cl.), a class action:

Two Shields Stamped Class Action Complaint.

The complaint seeks more than $400 million from the United States.

New Wolfchild Order re: Eligible Claimants & Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use and Distribution Act

August 10, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Wolfchild Aug. 5 Order

Intertribal NAHASDA Claims Proceed in Court of Federal Claims

August 8, 2011August 8, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Lummi Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (mostly)

Government Motion to Dismiss

Lummi et al Response

Government Reply

An excerpt describing the claims:

This action is one of a dozen or more law suits currently pending before both this court and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado brought by various Indian tribes and tribal housing authorities to challenge actions by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) in calculating and seeking the repayment of grant funds paid to the tribes pursuant to the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996 (“NAHASDA”), as amended, 25 U.S.C. §§ 4101-4212 (2006). In particular, plaintiffs in this case contend that HUD improperly determined that certain of plaintiffs’ housing units could not be included in their grant calculations, thereby depriving plaintiffs of funding to which they allegedly were entitled both under the payment mandates of NAHASDA and under their annual funding agreements.

Damages Claim under Navajo Treaty “Bad Men” Clause Fails

April 22, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Pablo v. United States (Ct. Cl.):

DCT Order Granting Govt Motion for Summary J

Govt Motion for Summary J

Pablo Response

Govt Reply

“Bad Men” Treaty Claim against U.S. re: Personal Injury Case Dismissed

April 7, 2011April 6, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Interesting argument, which in a nutshell is that the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie requires the United States to be responsible for “bad men” on the reservation, and therefore the federal government is liable for torts of bad white men on the reservation. The district court dismissed the action. Here are the materials in Richard v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

DCT Order Dismissing Richard Complaint

US Motion to Dismiss Richard Complaint

Richard Response Brief

USA Reply Brief — Richard

Round Valley Indian Tribe v. US — Preservation of Tribal Trust Claims over Federal Opposition

March 28, 2011March 28, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is that opinion from the Court of Federal Claims: Round Valley v US.

Here are the briefs:

US Motion for Partial Summary J

RVIT Response

US Reply to RVIT

Non-Indian Takings Claims Survives Summary Judgment in On-Reservation Lease Dispute

February 21, 2011February 20, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in McGuire v. United States (Fed. Cl.): McGuire v. United States

An excerpt:

Jerry McGuire brought this inverse condemnation claim nine years ago in a federal bankruptcy proceeding in district court in Arizona. He alleges that the government took his leased property by removing a bridge he used to access the northern portion of the property. He thus demands more than $2 million in compensation. After a trial and appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that exclusive jurisdiction over the merits of McGuire’s claim rests in the United States Court of Federal Claims.McGuire v. United States, 550 F.3d 903, 906 (9th Cir. 2008). The Ninth Circuit therefore remanded the case with instructions to transfer it here, and this Court received it on June 10, 2009.

* * *

For the above stated reasons, the government’s Motion To Dismiss is DENIED, and the government’s Motion For Summary Judgment is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. Issues of material fact exist as to whether a legally cognizable property interest exists for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, as to whether a taking by loss of access occurred, and as to whether a regulatory taking occurred under Penn Central. 438 U.S. at 124. The Court, however, finds that summary judgment for defendant is proper on the issue of McGuire’s claim for a categorical taking under Lucas. 505 U.S. at 1015. The Clerk is directed to act in accordance with the Court’s ruling.

Goodeagle v. U.S. — Complaint for Trust Damages for Mismanagement of Quapaw Assets

February 20, 2011February 18, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is that complaint, filed in the Court of Federal Claims: Goodeagle v. US Complaint

An excerpt:

This is a lawsuit for money damages arising from Defendant’s breach of fiduciary and trust obligations owing to Plaintiffs, Grace M. Goodeagle, Thomas Charles Bear, Edwina Faye Busby, James E. Gilmore, Jean Ann Lambert, Florence Whitecrow Mathews, Ardina Revard Moore, and Fran Wood, and the class they represent, all of whom are enrolled Members of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (O-Gah-Pah), a federally recognized Indian nation. The claims arise from Defendant’s failure to properly manage amounts due and owing to the Quapaw Tribal members under leases, permits, and agreements and government actions or inactions relating to certain real property, personal property (including chat severed from the surface and mineral estate by mining), mineral rights, as well as other sums due and owing to them by operation of law. These claims also arise from Defendant’s serious and sustained mismanagement of the Quapaw Tribal members’ Individual Indian Money Accounts, trust accounts, and other monetary assets. These claims also arise from Defendant’s similar mismanagement of the natural resources and other assets on Quapaw Tribal members’ trust/restricted lands, including but not limited to the mismanagement arising from federally managed mining activities on Quapaw Tribal members’ land, resulting in the destruction of natural resources and the environment, including the ability of Tribal members to use the land and other resources for grazing or agricultural or any other economically beneficial purpose.

An accounting of Defendant’s historical management of Quapaw trust assets — as set forth in a report known as the Quapaw Analysis — recently was completed and accepted as final by the Office of Historical Trust Accounting of the United States Department of the Interior. That accounting report, the product of a settlement of a previous suit for an equitable accounting, identifies and details Defendant’s mismanagement of numerous sampled Tribal and individual Tribal member trust assets, including but not limited to Defendant’s failure to collect monies due and owing under leases, permits, and agreements for the Quapaw Tribe and for the restricted interest holders of 13 allotments and of the class they represent, the degradation of the natural resources on the land and the environment, and the waste and dissipation of other trust assets, all of which was the result of mismanagement and negligence by the Defendant. The substantive law governing the United States’ trust responsibilities that were breached in this case may be fairly interpreted as mandating monetary compensation for damages sustained as a result of the breach of those duties.