Here is the complaint in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (D. Minn.):
District of Minnesota
Eighth Circuit Briefs in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa II
Mille Lacs Effort to Pierce Money Centers Corporate Veil Partially Successful
Here are the new materials in Corporate Commission of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Money Centers of America (D. Minn.):
258 Mlle Lacs Motion for Summary J
Federal Court Refuses to Intervene in Divorce Proceedings in Shakopee Tribal Court
Here are the materials in Lightfoot v. Jewell (D. Minn.):
Federal Court Issues Opinion on Scope of White Earth Tribal Police Authority as Federal Officers under FTCA
Here are the materials in Strei v. Blaine (D. Minn.):
61 MJ Order Granting Motion to Substitute Parties
112 DCT Order Affirming MJ Order
From the DCT Order:
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
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.):
Here are the materials in United States v. Brown (D. Minn.):
Federal Court Orders Fond du Lac Band to Pay Rent to City of Duluth for 2009-2011 as Gaming Revenue Sharing
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
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
Here are the materials in Corporate Commission of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Money Centers of America (D. Minn.):
155 Baena Advisors Motion to Dismiss
160 Real Estate Empowered Motion to Dismiss
169 Mille Lacs Motion for Summary J
180 Mille Lacs Opposition to 160
181 Mille Lacs Opposition to MCA Motions
182 MCA Opposition to Mille Lacs Motion
185 MCA Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
186 MCA Reply in Support of Motion for Summary J
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
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
Here are the materials in City of Duluth v. Fond Du Lac Band of Chippewa:
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.
Magistrate Report and Recommendations Order in Native Mob Indictments — Motions to Suppress
Here is the order in United States v. McArthur et al. (D. Minn.):
You must be logged in to post a comment.