Download memorandum in support here.
Link to complaint in previous post here.
District of North Dakota
North Dakota Tribal Member Sue over State’s Voter ID Law
Here is the complaint in Brakebill v. Jaeger (D. N.D.):
Supreme Court Cert Petition in Two Shields v. Wilkinson
Here:
ILTF Amicus Brief in Support of Petition
Law Profs Amicus Brief in Support of Petition
Questions presented:
In Temple v. Synthes Corp., 498 U.S. 5 (1990) (per curiam), this Court unanimously held that joint tortfeasors are not required parties under Rule 19(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because “[i]t has long been the rule that it is not necessary for all joint tortfeasors to be named as defendants in a single lawsuit.” Id. at 7. Six circuits have recognized the rule that joint wrongdoers are not required parties under Rule 19(a). Three circuits now have followed the opposite rule in holding that, in some circumstances, a joint tortfeasor is a required party, while case law in the Seventh Circuit is conflicted. The Eighth Circuit below followed the minority line of the circuit split to affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action under Rule 19 for failure to join the United States.
The question presented is: Does Rule 19 incorporate the common law rule that joint tortfeasors are not required parties?
Lower court materials here.
Eighth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Two Shields v. Wilkinson
Here is the opinion:
An excerpt:
Appellants Ramona Two Shields and Mary Louise Defender Wilson are Indians with interests in land allotted to them by the United States under the Dawes Act of 1887. Such land is held in trust by the government, but may be leased by allottees. Two Shields and Defender Wilson leased oil and gas mining rights on their allotments to appellee companies and affiliated individuals who won a sealed bid auction conducted by the Board of Indian Affairs (BIA) in 2007. Subsequent to the auction, appellants agreed to terms with the winning bidders, the BIA approved the leases, and appellees sold them for a large profit. Appellants later filed this putative class action in the District of North Dakota, claiming that the United States had breached its fiduciary duty by approving the leases for the oil and gas mining rights, and that the defendant bidders aided, abetted, and induced the United States to breach that duty. The district court concluded that the United States was a required party which could not be joined, but without which the action could not proceed in equity and good conscience, and dismissed the case. Appellants challenge that dismissal. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Briefs here.
Second Federal Court Suit to Stop Fort Berthold Tribal Court Suit against Oil Company
Here are the materials in EOG Resources Inc. v. Johnson (D. N.D.):
Eighth Circuit Briefs in Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter — Belcourt Public School District v. Davis
Here:
Belcourt Public School District Opening Brief
Belcourt Public School District Reply Brief
Lower court materials here.
Eighth Circuit Briefs in Tribal Court Jurisdiction Matter — Fort Yates Public School District No. 4 v. Murphy
Federal Court Hold Turtle Mountain Tribal Court Has Jurisdiction over Indian Claims against Insurance Company
Here are the materials in State Farm Insurance Companies v. Turtle Mountain Fleet Farm LLC (D.N.D.):
25 Greenwoods Motion for Summary J + Tribal Appellate Court Decision
27 State Farm Motion for Summary J
27-3 State Farm Tribal Court Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
In summary, the court concludes that the tribal court does have jurisdiction over the Greenwoods’ claims against State Farm. In reaching this conclusion, the status of the title of the land is not a significant consideration. Rather, the important factors for purposes of this case, given the nature of the activity at issue, are that the insurance policy was issued to members of the Tribe and is for a residence located on the reservation. Consequently, the court would reach the same conclusion if the Greenwoods’ residence was situated on non-Indian owned fee land.
Federal Court Complaint in Turtle Mountain Reservation Leasing Dispute
Here is the complaint in Grenier v. Delorme (D.N.D.):
An excerpt:
On or about March 18, 2010, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a ten – year Lease of Real Estate (“Lease”) for Defendant’s land located at tract number 324-5065 and described as E/2NE/4, of Section 3, Township 161 N., Range 71 W., Rolette County, North Dakota. This land is not located on the Turtle Mountain Reservation, but is trust land. A copy of the Lease is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Prior to entering into the Lease, Plaintiffs had farmed the land subject to the Lease for over thirty years.
Opening Eighth Circuit Brief in Two Shields v. Wilkinson
Here:
opening brief of plaintiffs-appellants
addendum to brief of plaintiffs-appellants
The MSU ILPC filed an amicus brief in this matter as well:
Lower court order here:
108 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
Here are the opening lines of the appellants’ brief:
Appellees engineered and executed a scheme to swindle hundreds of millions of dollars in oil-and-gas lease revenue from Appellants Ramona Two Shields and Mary Louise Defender Wilson and the class of Native Americans they propose to represent. Yet the District Court concluded that Appellants could not, as a matter of law, pursue their North Dakota common-law claims against Appellees simply because Appellees involved the United States in their swindle. Based on that fact alone, the District Court found that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 required dismissal of Appellants’ entire case.
There is a parallel suit against the United States in the CFC.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.