Ramah Class Action Summary and Estimated Dollar Shares

To all members of the Ramah class: please read this notice carefully; it contains important information about a proposed final settlement agreement.

Summary Notice of Final Settlement in Ramah Navajo Chapter v. Jewell here.

Estimated Dollar Shares for Each Class Member here.

Link to many other documents including FAQ here.

Previous TurtleTalk coverage here.

Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico TRO Materials (Gaming Dispute)

Here:

23 Pojoaque Motion for TRO

24-1 Pojoaque Supplemental Memorandum

28 New Mexico Opposition

Complaint here.

Navajo Nation Sues to Stop State Court Jurisdiction over Personal Injury Lawsuits Arising at Navajo Casinos

Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. Marsh (D. N.M.):

1 Complaint

Edit: Amended Complaint

Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Fracking Permits at Navajo

Here are the materials in Diné Citizens against Ruining Our Environment v. Jewell (D. N.M.):

16-1 Motion for PI

38-1 American Petroleum Institute Opposition

41 WPX Energy Oppoisition

42 US Opposition

52 Reply

63 DCT Order

Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico Good Faith Negotiations Complaint

Here:

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

The Pueblo and the State previously negotiated a Class III gaming compact that expired on June 30, 2015. The Pueblo formally requested that the State enter into a compact regarding the Pueblo’s Class III gaming activities on its Indian lands beyond the expiration of the current compact. More than 180 days have expired since the Pueblo made its initial  request. Accordingly, the Pueblo now seeks a determination by this Court that the State has failed to conclude negotiations in good faith. With that determination, the Court has jurisdiction to invoke IGRA’s remedies that will result in a negotiated compact, or submission of last best offers to a mediator (“baseball arbitration”), and/or procedures promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior to govern the Pueblo’s Class III gaming activities.

Tenth Circuit Reverses Dismissal of Pueblo of Jemez Aboriginal Title Land Claim

Here is the opinion:

13-2181

Briefs are here.

Decision in Navajo Health Foundation — Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell

Here are the materials in Navajo Health Foundation – Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell (D. N.M.):

27 Sage Motion for Summary J

48 IHS Response

53 Sage Reply

73 DCT Opinion

From the opinion:

Finally, the Court will grant the MSJ on two grounds. First, the Court will deem the Claim denied, because Dayish has not given Sage Hospital a “date certain” by which he will decide the Claim; rather, he conditioned his October 21, 2015, deadline upon Sage Hospital’s cooperation. Second, even if Dayish had given Sage Hospital a date certain by which he will decide the Claim, his proposed fourteen-month period for deciding the Claim is unreasonably long under the CDA. [4]  Accordingly, even if the Court did not deem the Claim already denied, it would order Dayish to approve or deny the Claim by July 25, 2015.

 

Tenth Circuit Briefs in New Mexico v. Dept. of Interior (Challenge to Part 291 Regs re: Pojoaque Pueblo)

Here are the briefs:

Interior Opening Brief

Pojoaque Opening Brief

New Mexico Brief

Interior Reply Brief

Pojoaque Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Government Moves to Dismiss Industry CERCLA Claim re: Uranium Mine at Laguna Pueblo

Here are the materials so far in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. United States (D. N.M.):

32 US Motion to Dismiss

Complaint is here.

Federal Court Rules Insurance Dispute May Proceed in Tribal Court

Here are the materials in Amerind Risk Management Co. v. Blackfeet Housing (D. N.M.):

18 Blackfeet Motion to Dismiss

23 Response

34 Reply

36 DCT Order

An excerpt:

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, filed on March 23, 2015 by Blackfeet Housing and Blackfeet Limited Partnerships (―Blackfeet Housing‖ or ―Defendants‖), #1-#4 (Doc. 17). Having reviewed the parties‘ briefs and applicable law, the Court finds that Defendants‘ motion is well-taken on the grounds that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, but denies the motion with regard to the other grounds for dismissal raised by Defendants