District of Minnesota

Fond du lac Band Prevails (Again) before Eighth Circuit in Gaming Compact Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa II:

City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 8th Circuit Decision

An excerpt:

We remand to the district court for its reconsideration of the Band’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion and direct it to consider all of the factors outlined here and in our prior remand order. Accordingly, the district court must give proper weight to the congressional intent that tribes be the primary beneficiaries of Indian gaming as well as other relevant factors we have previously identified. These include the facts that the City was on notice in 2009 of relevant actions and policies of the Gaming Commission and its warning in the 2011 Notice of Violation that the tribe would violate IGRA by making further rent payments to the city. As discussed in our prior City of Duluth opinion, such change in the governing law is also relevant to the question of whether an exceptional circumstance compels a grant of Rule 60(b)(6) relief. City of Duluth, 702 F.3d at 1154-55; see In re Pac. Far E. Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1989).

Briefs are here.

Contract Breach Complaint: Ceridian HCM Inc. v. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Ceridian HCM, Inc. v. Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians (D. Minn.):

1 Complaint

5 DCT Order to Show Cause

An excerpt:

In the Complaint, Ceridian HCM alleged that it “is a Delaware corporation with its principal office” in Minnesota; that Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians “is a federally recognized Indian tribe” that has its principal office in California; that Chumash Casino Resort Enterprise “is an unincorporated business enterprise wholly owned by” Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians; and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. It appears that jurisdiction under § 1332 does not exist because “Indian tribes are neither foreign states nor citizens of any state.” Gaming World Int’l, Ltd. v. White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians, 317 F.3d 840, 847 (8th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tribal Court of Spirit Lake Indian Reservation, 495 F.3d 1017, 1020-21 (8th Cir. 2007);Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W Enters., Inc., 487 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.2 (8th Cir. 2007).

The Court grants Ceridian HCM an opportunity to submit a memorandum of law that explains why this action should not be dismissed for lack for subject-matter jurisdiction. SeeHertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 94, 130 S. Ct. 1181, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1029 (2010) (“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.”); Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1097 (2006) (“The objection that a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.” (citation omitted)). Ceridian HCM shall file the memorandum within seven days of the date of this Order.

Pro Se Section 1983 Suit against Mille Lacs Ojibwe Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Goodman v. Waukey (D. Minn.):

1 Complaint

7 Magistrate Report

11 DCT Order

White Earth Nation Moves for Summary Judgment in Challenge to Two Oil Pipelines

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the motion in White Earth Nation v. Kerry (D. Minn.):

71 Motion for Summary J

We posted the complaint here.

Federal Court Applies Sherrill Defenses, Tribal Immunity to Dismiss Wolfchild Statutory Land Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the order in Wolfchild v. Redwood County (D. Minn.):

196 DCT Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

An excerpt:

The Court finds no basis upon which to distinguish this case from those asserted in Sherrill or Stockbridge. It is clear that Plaintiffs’ claims flow from the 1863 Act. It is also clear that the land at issue here was sold to third parties no later than 1895. See Wolfchild IX, 731 F.3d at 1293. Plaintiffs’ claims are thus like those described in Stockbridge: “Indian land claims asserted generations after an alleged dispossession that are inherently disruptive of state and local governance and the settled expectations of current landowners and are subject to dismissal on the basis of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility.” Id. 756 F.3d at 165.

There is no language in Sherrill or Stockbridge that would limit the holdings of those decisions to claims based on aboriginal title.

Based on the particular characteristics and history of the claims at issue here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are equitably barred. Application of the equitable bar set forth inSherrill does not require a balancing of equities between the parties. Instead, the equitable bar focuses on Plaintiffs’ delay in seeking relief, and the disruption that would result to settled and justified expectations regarding land ownership. Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 216‐17, 221(finding that “the Oneidasʹ long delay in seeking equitable relief against New York or its local units, and developments in the city of Sherrill spanning several generations, evoke the doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, and render inequitable the piecemeal shift in governance this suit seeks unilaterally to initiate”).

Briefs are here.

Federal Court Dismisses Duluth Suit over Carter Hotel Property

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (D. Minn.):

12 Fond du Lac Motion to Dismiss

23 City Motion for PI

32 City Response to Motion to Dismiss

33 Find du Lac Response to Motion for PI

37 Fond du Lac Reply

38 City Reply

43 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

Complaint was posted here.

Motions to Dismiss Pleadings in re: Wolfchild Land Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials so far in Wolfchild v. Redwood County (D. Minn.):

120 First Amended Complaint

156 Redwood County Motion to Dismiss

164 Landowners Motion to Dismiss

165 Lower Sioux Community Motion to Dismiss

168 Episcopal Diocese Motion to Dismiss

185 Wolfchild Opposition

189 Lower Sioux Reply

190 Landowners Reply

191 Episcopal Diocese Reply

192 Redwood County Reply

White Earth Nation v. Kerry — NEPA Challenge to International Pipeline

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint, filed in the District of Minnesota:

1 Complaint

Eighth Circuit Briefs on Reach of Lacey Act in Minnesota Chippewa Tribe Reservations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in United States v. Brown:

USA Opening Brief

Appellees Consolidated Brief

Reply Brief TK

Lower court materials here.

Land Claim Filed in Minnesota Federal District Court

Kate Fort1 Comment

Complaint here.
Press Release here.

The lawsuit speaks of the Minnesota 1862 Sioux revolt where Congress later helped to regain lands for the Mdewakanton who saved settlers and did not participate in the revolt. A never repealed February 1863 Act instructed the Secretary of Interior to set aside about 12 square miles of reservation land for the loyal Mdewakanton’s “for ever.” Because of white-settler hostility, the loyal Mdewakanton were not able to settle on those lands. But, the United States, although it never had the legal authority to transfer title, did so and sold the land to subsequent possessors. Thus, all subsequent land owners never had clear title to those Indian lands.