District of North Dakota – Page 9

This dispute implicates the first Montana exception. Dish Network argues this case involves no activity that took place on the reservation, and that it only concerns the filing of two third-party complaints against Brian Laducer. However, the contract between Dish Network and Brian Laducer lies at the heart of this protracted dispute. In his Tribal Court complaint, Brian Laducer alleges “Dish Network has taken advantage and abused the legal process to harm Mr. Laducer.” Determining whether Dish Network abused the legal process will undoubtedly involve an examination of the contract between Dish Network and Brian Laducer. Dish Network voluntarily entered into a contract with Brian Laducer, an enrolled member of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, to provide services on the reservation. By entering into a consensual contractual relationship with tribal members on tribal land, Dish Network subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the Tribal Court. This factor weighs against granting a preliminary injunction.

And here are the state court materials leading into the tribal court case (the case started in state court, was removed to federal court, and remanded back to state court, which determined it did not have jurisdiction):

State Court Transcript

State Court Summary Judgment Order against Laducer

State Court Dismissal Order Memorandum

Agamenv LLC v. Lavedure

June 12, 2012Kate Fort

North Dakota federal district court refrains from issuing a TRO in a dispute between Turtle Mountain Tribal Council, Tribal Court, and gaming company.

Order

Complaint-FDC

Brief

Complaint-tribal court

Ex Parte TRO – tribal court

Motion to Withdraw TRO-tribal court

Federal Court Declines to Certify Class in Truth-In-Lending/Usury Claims against Auto Dealers Near Turtle Mountain

May 10, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are selected materials in Delorme v. Autos, Inc. (D. N.D.):

DCT Order Denying Motion to Certify Class

Delorme Motion for Summary Judgment — Fed Truth in Lending [includes many of the sales documents]

Delorme Motion for Summary Judgment — Usery

The most remarkable materials are the tribal court complaint and the settlement agreement with Autos, Inc. — executed the day after the filing of the complaint — that amounts to a full capitulation on the part of the auto dealer. Bonnie Delorme purchased a car at 25% interest after a $3000 down payment, never defaulted on the loan, and had her car repossessed anyway.

Delorme v Autos Inc Tribal Court Complaint

Delorme — Autos Settlement

Federal Court Dismisses $10M Suit by Spirit Lake Members (“Committee for Understanding and Respect”) over Fighting Sioux Name and Logo

May 2, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here are the materials in Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe ex rel. Committee of Understanding and Respect v. NCAA (D. N.D.):

DCT Order Granting NCAA Motion

NCAA Motion to Dismiss

Committee Response

NCAA Reply

We posted the complaint here.

Given what I saw in my two years at UND (here is a snippet), I can’t let this go without comment. I just returned from Boulder, attending a conference in honor of David Getches, the leader in American Indian treaty rights litigation. He fought for the very survival of Indian people and Indian tribes, for the right to fish guaranteed by treaty … really for the right to exist. I see this “Committee” assert treaty rights for something as pitiful as a university sports team’s name and logo, despite all of the negative consequences of this name and logo for UND students and faculty, and I am ashamed. I find this assertion of treaty rights deeply offensive. I assume that the 1969 treaty at issue was made in good faith, but treaties between Indian people and others are made for better things than this. So much has been done in good faith by the opponents and proponents of the name and logo. But nothing good can come from the name and logo after all that has happened. Absolutely nothing.

Spirit Lake Sioux Tribe ex rel. Committee of Understanding and Respect v. NCAA Complaint

November 2, 2011November 2, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here: Complaint

Ok, so is this really the Spirit Lake Sioux Nation? What is the Committee of Respect and Understanding? They are the same people who sued the State of North Dakota (unsuccessfully — Davidson v. State) in the last couple years seeking the same relief from the State Board of Education. Paragraph 4 of the complaint alleges they are “authorized by the Spirit Lake Tribe to act on its behalf and proceed in any legal manner it deems appropriate to assure that the University of North Dakota (UND) shall remain known as the ‘Fighting Sioux.'” Here is a link to Dr. Erich Longie’s blog, “Dakota Hoksina,” that strongly suggests the Committee of Respect and Understanding represents very few people at Spirit Lake and Standing Rock — and perhaps not the Nation, either. He probably doesn’t represent anyone either, but seems to have about the same authority as the Committee.

And who is “tribal attorney” Reed Soderstrom? His only prior Indian law experience appears to be in foreclosing on the mortgage of a Turtle Mountain Chippewa member, and his vehicle (Gustafson v Poitra and Ford Motor Credit v Poitra).

ICT coverage here.

What’s going on????

American Indian Students at UND File Suit over “Fighting Sioux” Nickname/State Legislation

August 11, 2011August 15, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Annis v. Dalrymple (D. N.D.):

Complaint and Jury Trial Demand

And the press release:

University of North Dakota Native American Students

File Suit to Prevent “Fighting Sioux” Nickname, Logo and Imagery

Seek damages after Legislature mandates use of the nickname Continue reading →