District of Nevada – Page 6

Defendants seek to amend their answer to allege a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs. The proposed counterclaim alleges two causes of action: abuse of process and intentional interference with prospective economic relations. Plaintiffs oppose the motion on the grounds that it is untimely, will cause undue prejudice to them and that the proposed counterclaim would be futile because neither cause of action states a legally viable claim for relief.

119 DCT Order Adopting R&R

Prior post in this matter here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Carsten v. Nevada Inter-Tribal Council — FMLA Claims

March 24, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Carsten Opening Brief

ITC Answer Brief

Carsten Reply Brief

Oral argument video and audio.

Lower court materials here.

NAHASDA Matter Involving Te-Moak Tribe; HUD Interpretation of 24 CFR 1000.318 Struck Down

January 16, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Housing Authority of the Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians v. HUD (D. Nev.):

18 Te-Moak Motion for Summary J

Ninth Circuit Materials in Appeal Involving Insurance Cos. Defending Torts against Tribal Business

January 8, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in McVay v. Allied World Ins. Co.:

McVay Opening Brief

York Appellee Brief

Allied World Appellee Brief

McVay Reply

Lower court materials are here:

12 Amended Complaint

15 York Motion to Dismiss

16 McVay Response to York

19 York Reply

22 Allied Motion to Dismiss

30 McVay Response to Allied

33 McVay Supplemental Response

35 Allied Reply

Federal court opinion: 16_F.Supp.3d_1202

From the West syllabus:

Background: Pedestrian who allegedly slipped and fell in a gas station convenience store owned by tribal development corporation, which was an entity of Indian tribe, brought action against, inter alia, insurer for the Indian tribe and insurer’s administrator, seeking to recover damages for injuries she sustained as a result of the slip-and-fall. Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Holdings: The District Court, Howard D. McKibben, J., held that:

(1) pedestrian lacked standing to enforce the Indian tribe’s contract with insurer under Nevada law, and (2) pedestrian lacked standing to assert claim against insurer for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Nevada law.

Motions granted.

Federal Court Decides Walker River Paiute NAHASDA Funding Allocation Challenge

December 17, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Walker River Paiute Tribe v. HUD (D. Nev.):

18 Walker River Paiute Motion for Summary J

21 HUD Response & Cross Motion

27 Walker River Paiute Reply

31 HUD Reply

40 HUD Supplemental Brief

41 Walker River Paiute Supplemental Brief

45 DCT Order

Grand Canyon Skywalk Development Defamation Suit Proceeds against PR Firm

May 28, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Steele (D. Nev.):

17 Scutari & Cieslak Motion to Dismiss

20 Tribal Council Defendants Motion to Dismiss

22 GCSD Response to 17

27 GCSD Response to 20

31 Scutari & Cieslak Reply

32 Tribal Council Defendants Reply

63 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Cesspooch

64 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Tribal Council Defendants

66 DCT Order

Complaint posted here.

Moapa Band Complaint re: Alleged Gaming Management Contract

March 27, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Moapa Band of Paiute Indians v. Herbst Moapa Development LLC (D. Nev.):

1 Complaint

Federal Court Holds Tribe May Prosecute Disenrollee

March 25, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians v. Phebus (D. Nev.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Tribal Court of Appeals Opinion

8 Motion for Declaratory Judgment

10 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The Court DECLARES that the Tribe may assert criminal jurisdiction over any person qualifying as an Indian under the ICRA, as interpreted in cases such as United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005), but in such a prosecution the Tribe must prove Indian status beyond a reasonable doubt, and the Tribal Court must submit the question to a jury where the crime is punishable by imprisonment, unless the jury right is properly waived, and there is no evidence that these procedures were followed as to Phebus in the cases cited. Furthermore, if the Tribe seeks to prosecute a non-member whose membership it has revoked or rejected, the Indian status analysis in such a prosecution may not rely upon political affiliation with the Tribe, but only upon actual or de facto membership in another tribe.