Court of Federal Claims – Page 15

Jicarilla Apache Tribe sued the U.S. in 2002 in the Court of Federal Claims and later asked for inter-agency federal documents where the government claimed an attorney-client privilege. The court disagreed and ordered the production of certain documents. This order here denies the government’s motion for a stay while it petitions to the Federal Circuit for a mandamus order. Now apparently it wants more time to file a cert petition in the Supreme Court.

Order on Motion to Stay

And here is the Federal Circuit’s order.

Federal Court Rejects Second Attempt by Samish Indian Nation in Federal Recognition Trust Case

December 6, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the latest opinion in Samish Indian Nation v. United States (Fed. Cl.) — Samish Ct Cl Order

An excerpt:

It is readily apparent that the federal government’s failure to treat plaintiff as a recognized Indian tribe between 1969 and 1996 deprived plaintiff of many of the federal benefits enjoyed by other federally recognized Indian tribes during that time period. However, the relief plaintiff seeks is not available in the Court of Federal Claims. Indeed, if plaintiff is lagging behind some of its sister tribes as a result of the deprivation of federal benefits, its avenue for relief is with Congress.

Navajo DPS Employee Claims for Wages under 638 Contract Dismissed

November 19, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Boye v. United States (Fed. Cl.) — Boye v United States

An excerpt:

In the above-captioned action, plaintiffs allege that they have not been paid the wages and benefits to which they are entitled pursuant to various self-determination contracts executed by their employer, the Navajo Nation, and the United States Department of the Interior (“Department of the Interior”). They bring their claim as purported third-party beneficiaries. Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Rule 12 of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). As explained in more detail below, the court grants defendant’s motion.

Federal Court Dismisses Long-Running Jamul Election and Land Disputes

October 16, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Rosales v. United States (Ct. Cl.) — Rosales DCT Order Dismissing Complaints

US Motion to Dismiss Rosales Complaints

Rosales Opposition

US Reply Brief

Yakama Indian Nation Rents Claims Survives Motion to Dismiss

October 16, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the court’s order denying the United States’ motion to dismiss claims by the Yakama Indian Nation under the Indian Long-Term Leasing Act and other statutes — Yakama v US DCT Order

An excerpt:

The following facts are established, for the purpose of ruling on defendant’s motion, by the record submitted to date. The claim over which the United States Court of Federal Claims’ subject matter jurisdiction is contested alleges the Government’s breach of trust and fiduciary duties in collecting rent owed by a lessee to plaintiff lessors, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (the “Yakama Nation”) and eighteen individual landowners (together with the Yakama Nation “plaintiffs”). The lessee’s debt of unpaid principal arose from 1996 until 2000, during the second quarter of a twenty-year lease approved and administered by the United States Department of the Interior on plaintiffs’ behalf. Implicated by plaintiffs’ complaint are the activities of three entities within the Department of the Interior: the Superintendent of the Yakama Agency (the “Superintendent”) of the BIA; the Northwest Regional Director of the BIA (the “Regional Director”), who oversaw the Superintendent’s activities and received appeals of decisions by the BIA; and the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (the “IBIA”), which reviewed appeals of decisions of the Regional Director.

Samish Must Wait to Appeal Claim against United States

February 6, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in this Rule 54(b) motion:

samish-indian-nation-dct-order [an excerpt: Before the court is plaintiff’s motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”). Plaintiff requests that the court enter a final judgment on its May 27, 2008 Opinion and Order, which dismissed plaintiff’s first claim for relief with respect to the Tribal Priority Allocation (“TPA”) system and the Indian Health Service (“IHS”) funding process. Defendant opposes plaintiff’s motion. For the reasons set forth below, the court denies plaintiff’s motion.]

samish-nation-rule-54b-motion

us-response-to-rule-54b-motion

samish-reply

Here are the materials from the earlier portion of the case.

Nez Perce Tribe v. United States — Court of Federal Claims

September 4, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

For the reasons stated, the court holds that when a complaint is filed in the Court of Federal Claims prior to the filing of an overlapping complaint in another court on the same day, 28 U.S.C. § 1500 does not divest this court of jurisdiction over that first-filed complaint. The Nez Perce Tribe has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that its Court of Federal Claims complaint was filed on December 28, 2006, earlier than its complaint filed the same day in district court. In sum, Nez Perce’s complaint in the district court was not “pending” when the Tribe filed its complaint in this court. Because the Tucker Act and Indian Tucker Act provide a basis for jurisdiction over Nez Perce’s complaint in this court, and because that jurisdiction is not displaced by operation of 28 U.S.C. § 1500, the court is obliged to proceed to consider the merits of this case.