Here:
D.C. District Court
Choctaw Nation v. Sebelius Amended Complaint
Federal Court Denies Alaska and US Motions for Reconsideration in Akiachak Native Community v. Jewell
Here are the materials:
112-1 Alaska Motion for Reconsideration
116 Akiachak Supplemental Memorandum
118 Interior Supplemental Memorandum
119 Alaska Supplemental Memorandum
120 Interior Motion for Reconsideration + Exhibits
121 Interior Response to Alaska Motion
127 Akiachak Response to Interior Motion
Briefs Filed in Grand Ronde et al v. Jewell
Grand Ronde’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Grand Ronde Exhibit One
Clark County et al Motion for Summary Judgment
Previous coverage of the case here.
GTB Sues over Indian Health Services Contract Support Costs
Here is the complaint in Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. United States (D. D.C.):
Federal Court Grants Intervention to Ione Band Miwok in Challenge to Federal Trust Land Acquisition
Here are the materials so far in No Casino in Plymouth v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):
35 Ione Band Motion for Intervention
46 DCT Order Granting Intervention
Complaints are here.
Judge Hogan Sets Cherokee Freedmen Oral Argument for April 29, 2014
Briefing Schedule in Cherokee Freedmen Case (Now in D.C. Federal District Court)
Update in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar — Updated 9/27/13
The court has issued an opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar (D. D.C.):
From the order:
This matter is before the Court on Intervenor-Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 58, at 2 (Mar. 26, 2012). Intervenor-Defendant also argues that it is a required party but that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, id. at 21; for clarity the Court will construe this argument as a motion to join a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2). Because the Court agrees that Intervenor-Defendant is a required party but not that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, the motion to join a required party is GRANTED. Because the Court finds Intervenor-Defendant’s remaining arguments to be largely — but not entirely — without merit, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Materials are here.
Update — additional materials:
2013 09 20 Motion for Reconsideration
You must be logged in to post a comment.