Here are the materials in Lee v. Cleve Her Many Horses (D.S.D.):
29 Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants
32 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants
34 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
36 Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Individual Defendants
Here are the updated materials in Heldt v. Payday Financial LLC (D.S.D.):
36 Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration
46 Opposition to Motion to Stay
51 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
56 Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
ORDERED that Defendants, as the parties asserting that there is tribal court jurisdiction and that there ought to be tribal court exhaustion, must file within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order a declaratory judgment action in the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court naming the Plaintiffs herein to address to that court the issue of tribal court jurisdiction and if that court concludes it has jurisdiction, and the availability of an arbitration forum as specified in the loan agreements in this case. In such a tribal court action, Plaintiffs of course may contest tribal court jurisdiction and assert their arguments as the unavailability of an arbitration forum as specified in the agreements without waiving their assertion that there is no tribal court jurisdiction. It is finally
ORDERED that the parties keep this Court advised of proceedings in the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court by filing upon the conclusion of any tribal court proceedings and/or appeals, all pleadings filed by any party and all rulings by the tribal court as an attachment to an affidavit or stipulation.
Here are the materials in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik (D. S.D.):
Order Denying Motions to Dismiss (Jan 28, 2014)
Order Granting Class Certification (Jan. 28, 2014)
Order Granting Expedited Discovery (Jan. 28, 2014)
Here are the materials in Big Eagle v. United States (D. S.D.):
An excerpt:
Big Eagle now has filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in this case. CIV Doc. 1. Big Eagle in his motion raised five grounds, all of which contended that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance to him. CIV Doc. 1 at 5-6. Big Eagle filed a Memorandum of Law supporting the § 2255 motion. CIV Doc. 2. This Court screened the case and ordered the Government to file a response. CIV Doc. 7. The Government resisted the motion, CIV Doc. 17, and filed an affidavit signed by Big Eagle’s trial counsel disputing Big Eagle’s contentions. CIV Doc. 17-2. Big Eagle filed a reply thereafter. CIV Doc. 20. For the reasons explained herein, this Court denies Big Eagle’s § 2255 motion.
Earlier, related materials here.
Here are the materials in Wilson v. Shortbull (D. S.D.):
An excerpt:
Ms. Wilson does not object to the magistrate judge finding she failed to exhaust her tribal remedies. Rather, Ms. Wilson objects on the basis that she does not believe the tribal courts can be impartial because of their connection to OLC. (Docket 19). Ms. Wilson asserted this same argument in her response to defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Docket 16). This contention does not fall within any of the exceptions to the exhaustion requirement noted above. In addition, the court agrees with the magistrate judge in finding exhaustion of tribal remedies in this case is particularly appropriate because Ms. Wilson’s allegations are premised on the employment action of a tribally chartered organization. The court finds Ms. Wilson is required to exhaust her tribal remedies. Because Ms. Wilson has not exhausted those remedies, this court lacks jurisdiction over her action.
Here are the materials in Gunville v. United States (D. S.D.):
Here are the updated materials in Bettor Racing Inc. v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. S.D.):
35 DCT Order Allowing Intervention
36 Flandreau Answer and Counterclaim
Complaint was posted here.
Here are the materials in Brenner v. Bendigo (D. S.D.):
An excerpt:
This is an original garnishment action brought in federal court pursuant to a state statute to enforce a tribal court judgment. Doc. 6. An action for a writ of garnishment filed in federal district court as an independent action does not arise under federal law; it arises under state law. See Berry v. McLemore, 795 F.2d 452, 456 (5th Cir. 1986) (“First, subject matter jurisdiction as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, does not exist, because an action for a writ ofgarnishment arises from state law, not federal law. “). Even when taking all the facts pleaded in the Affidavit as true, this action does not arise under federal law and federal question jurisdiction is not proper.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.