District of Minnesota – Page 8

Plaintiff Nathan Strei brings claims against five Defendants in this action, including tort claims against John McArthur and Merlin Deegan in both their official capacities as White Earth tribal police officers and their personal capacities. McArthur and Deegan moved to substitute the United States as the proper defendant for the common law tort claims brought against them, pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). The Magistrate Judge granted the motion for substitution, and Strei objects. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s determination that McArthur and Deegan were acting within the scope of their employment as federal employees at the time of the events giving rise to Strei’s tort claims was neither erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, the Court will affirm the Magistrate Judge’s July 11, 2013 order.

Federal Judge Agrees with Minnesota Ojibwe Members to Dismiss Lacey Act Prosecutions for Fishing at Red Lake

November 26, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

This sets up an unusual circumstance — conflicting federal district court opinions arising from the same federal investigation. Our post on the prior order from a different judge, who rejected the motion to dismiss in United States v. Holthusen is here. News coverage here.

Here are the materials in United States v. Good (D. Minn.):

43 MJ R&R

46 Objections to MJ R&R

52 Government Response

56 DCT Order Rejecting MJ R&R

Here are the materials in United States v. Brown (D. Minn.):

71 MJ R&R

90 DCT Order Rejecting MJ R&R

Federal Court Orders Fond du Lac Band to Pay Rent to City of Duluth for 2009-2011 as Gaming Revenue Sharing

October 9, 2013October 9, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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

258 City of Duluth Motion for Stay

262 Fond du Lac Rule 60 Motion

266 Fond du Lac Response to Motion for Stay

269 City Response to Rule 60 Motion

270 Reply in Support of Rule 60 Motion

273 DCT Order

News coverage here.

This case is on remand from the Eighth Circuit; materials here.

The City has a pending matter against the NIGC here.

Mille Lacs Band Wins $5.6M Judgment against Money Centers of America

October 3, 2013October 3, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Corporate Commission of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Money Centers of America (D. Minn.):

141 MCA Motion to Dismiss

155 Baena Advisors Motion to Dismiss

160 Real Estate Empowered Motion to Dismiss

169 Mille Lacs Motion for Summary J

170 Mille Lacs Exhibits

172 MCA Motion for Summary J

180 Mille Lacs Opposition to 160

181 Mille Lacs Opposition to MCA Motions

182 MCA Opposition to Mille Lacs Motion

184 Mille Lacs Reply

185 MCA Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

186 MCA Reply in Support of Motion for Summary J

187 Reply in Support of 160

199 Melanie Banjamin Motion to Quash

205 MCA Opposition to Motion to Quash

211 MJ Order Granting Motion to Quash

240 DCT Order re Motion to Dismiss

239 DCT Order re Summary J

241 MJ Order re Motion to Compel

Prior materials here.

Eighth Circuit Decides City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Ojibwe Indians Gaming Revenue Sharing Appeal

January 14, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in City of Duluth v. Fond Du Lac Band of Chippewa:

CA8 Opinion

Fond du Lac Brief

City of Duluth Brief

Fond du Lac Band Reply

City of Duluth Reply

From the court’s summary:

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. A binding adjudication by a federal agency, which has been tasked with interpreting and enforcing a statute enacted by Congress, represents a change in the law for the purposes of Rule 60(b); here, the National Indian Gaming Commission’s decision that the agreement between the parties concerning the operation of a casino was in violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act made illegal what the earlier consent decree between the parties was designed to enforce, and the district court did not err in deciding to grant prospective relief from continued enforcement of the 1994 consent decree by dissolving the decree as it related to the years 2011-2036; the district court erred in concluding that it could not grant retrospective relief under Rule 60(b)(6) and its ruling denying retrospective relief on rent payments from 2009 to 2011 is reversed, and the question remanded for further consideration.

Lower court materials here.