Here are the materials in Littlefield v. Dept. of Interior (D. Mass.):
56 Interior Motion for Summary J
59 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary J
69 City of Taunton Amicus Brief
District of Massachusetts
Federal Court Dismisses NAGPRA Private Tort Claim against US
Here are the materials in Jensen v. National Park Service (D. Mass.):
Students of Color (incl. Natives) Denied Intervention in Anti-Affirmative Action Suit Targeting Harvard
Here are the materials in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (D. Mass.):
Massachusetts Gaming Claims against Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Survive Motions to Dismiss; Counterclaims Do, Too
Here are the updated materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):
65 Massachusetts Opposition to Rule 19 Motion
67 Aquinnah-Gay Head Community Opposition to 11th Amendment Motion to Dismiss
71 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Reply in Support of Rule 19 Motion
72 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss on Immunity Grounds
77 Massachusetts Motion to Dismiss
86 Massachusetts Officials Motion to Dismiss
87 Wampanoag Tribe Opposition to Massachusetts Immunity Motion
95 DCT Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
An excerpt:
This lawsuit involves a dispute between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a federally recognized Indian tribe concerning regulatory jurisdiction over civil gaming on Indian lands on Martha’s Vineyard. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and related entities have taken steps to commence commercial gaming operations on tribal lands without a license from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth contends that operating gaming facilities without such a license would violate a 1983 settlement agreement that subjects the lands in question to state civil and criminal jurisdiction (and thus subjects them to state laws regulating gaming). Count 1 of the complaint alleges breach of contract, and Count 2 seeks a declaratory judgment.
The Commonwealth filed suit in state court on December 2, 2013. On December 30, 2013, the Tribe removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. On August 6, 2014, the Court granted motions to intervene by the Town of Aquinnah and the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association (“AGHCA”). The Tribe has moved to dismiss the AGHCA complaint on the basis of sovereign immunity and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; it has further moved to dismiss all three complaints (with leave to amend) for failure to join the United States as a required party.
On October 24, 2014, the Tribe filed an amended answer that included a counterclaim against the Commonwealth and counterclaims against three third-party defendants (all of whom are officials of the Commonwealth). Plaintiff and third-party defendants have moved to dismiss the counterclaims on the grounds of sovereign immunity (as to the counterclaims against the Commonwealth) and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For the reasons stated below, the motions of the Tribe will be denied and the motion of counterclaim-defendants will be granted in part and denied in part.
We posted motions to dismiss here. Materials on the state court removal and remand motions here. Complaint here.
Cherokee Nation Allowed to Proceed with Avandia Suit against GlaxoSmithKline in Cherokee Courts
Here are the materials in GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Cherokee Nation (D. Mass.):
An excerpt:
The dispute in this case centers on a 2012 settlement agreement entered into by Plaintiff GlaxoSmithKline LLC (“GlaxoSmithKline” or “GSK”) in connection with its plea in a criminal proceeding, United States of America v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, Criminal Action No. 12-10206-RWZ (D. Mass). GlaxoSmithKline now seeks a declaratory judgment that claims brought by the Cherokee Nation in the District Court of the Cherokee Nation were released by the settlement agreement. Presently at issue are GlaxoSmithKline’s Renewed Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [#61] and the Cherokee Nation’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment [#64]. For the following reasons, GlaxoSmithKline’s motion is DENIED and the Cherokee Nation’s motion is ALLOWED.
We posted the complaint here.
Update in Massachusetts Suit over Gaming on Martha’s Vineyard
Here are the new materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):
37 Aquinnah Community Association Motion to Intervene + Proposed Complaint
39 Town of Aquinnah Motion to Intervene
41 Wampanoag Opposition to Town Motion
42 Wampanoag Opposition to Community Association Motion
Update in Massachusetts Suit over Gaming on Martha’s Vineyard
Here are the new materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):
37 Aquinnah Community Association Motion to Intervene + Proposed Complaint
39 Town of Aquinnah Motion to Intervene
41 Wampanoag Opposition to Town Motion
42 Wampanoag Opposition to Community Association Motion
Federal Court Finds Jurisdiction in Tribal Dispute with Massachusetts over Regulation of Gaming on Martha Vineyard
Here are the materials so far in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):
18 Massachusetts Motion to Remand
21 Opposition to Motion to Remand
An excerpt:
This lawsuit involves a dispute between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a federally recognized Indian tribe as to who has regulatory jurisdiction over civil gaming on Indian lands on Martha’s Vineyard. The Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe and related entities have taken steps to commence commercial gaming operations on tribal lands without a license from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts contends that by doing so, the Tribe violated a 1983 settlement agreement that subject the lands in question to state civil and criminal jurisdiction. Count 1 of the complaint alleges breach of contract, and Count 2 seeks a declaratory judgment.
The Commonwealth filed suit in state court on December 2, 2013. On December 30, 2013, defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. The Commonwealth has moved to remand the matter to state court. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.
Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to 2009 Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Election
Here are the materials in Ramos v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (D. Mass.):
An excerpt:
The Plaintiffs, enrolled members of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (“Tribe”), have sued the Defendants, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”); Michael Black, Director of the BIA; Mike Smith, Deputy Director; Franklin Keel, Regional Director; and Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary (collectively, the “Defendants”) seeking an injunction requiring the Defendants to conduct an investigation into the Tribe’s 2009 election and to take action to ensure that the Tribe’s elections are properly conducted. D. 9 at 10. The Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim and failure to join a necessary party. D. 10. Because the Court concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the Court ALLOWS the motion to dismiss.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.