Utah Federal Court Holds Ute Tribe Still Owes $209K in Attorney Fees in Dispute with Former Contractor

Here are the updated materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe (D. Utah):

297 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Sanctions Order

302 Ute Motion to Recover Costs

303 Ute Motion for Relief from Judgment

304 Ute Motion for Stay

308 Becker Opposition to 303

309 Becker Opposition to 304

310 Jurrius Opposition to 304

314 Ute Reply in Support of 304

315 DCT Order Granting Ute Motion to Recover Costs

Prior post on the attorney fee sanction against Ute here.

Prior post on the Tenth Circuit decision in this case favoring Ute here.

Tenth Circuit Rejects Ute Tribe’s Effort to Force Water Rights Case to be Adjudicated in Tribal Court

Here is the opinion in Ute Indian Tribe v. McKee.

Briefs:

Lower court materials here.

Semi-Split Tenth Circuit Decides Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation [banishment]

Here is the opinion.

Briefs here.

An excerpt:

We begin by discussing the tribal exhaustion doctrine involved in this case. “[W]hen a federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over a claim arising in Indian country over which a tribal forum has colorable jurisdiction, principles of comity and the federal policy of promoting tribal self-government generally require that the plaintiff fully exhaust tribal remedies before proceeding in federal court.” Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 59 cmt. a (Am. Law Inst., Proposed Final Draft 2021).

slip op. at 14.

Maybe a little more Restatement. . . .

Post–Santa Clara Pueblo, federal review has been limited to habeas, leaving tribal courts to adjudicate any other civil rights claims. See Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 16 cmt. a (“With the exception of actions for habeas corpus relief [under § 1303, ICRA’s civil rights] guarantees are enforceable exclusively in tribal courts and other tribal fora.”).

slip op. at 21.
Ute Indians camped at Belle Fourche, South Dakota, who are dissatisfied with their treatment: Capt. Johnson, with the Sixth Cavalry from Ft. Meade, S.D., addressing Indians, who they were sent to arrest

And more. . . .

Tribal exhaustion doctrine exists to preserve tribal sovereignty and prevent the federal courts from running roughshod over tribal legal systems. See Norton, 862 F.3d at 1243; Restatement of the Law of Am. Indians § 28 cmt. a (“[A]djudication of matters impairing reservation affairs by any nontribal court . . . infringes upon tribal law-making authority, because tribal courts are best qualified to interpret and apply tribal law.”).

Slip op. at 34.

Federal Court Asserts Personal Jurisdiction over Tort Claims Arising in Indian Country [Navajo]

Here are the materials in Four Corners Health Care v. Roots Home Health Care (D. Utah):

Ute Tribe Sanctioned for Abuse of Judicial Process/Acting in Bad Faith

Here are the new materials in the long-running Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):

205 Becker Notice of Intent to Subpoena

206 Tribe Motion to Quash

210 Opposition

211 Reply

221 DCT Order to Show Cause

228 Response to Order to Show Cause

234 Becker Memorandum re Tribe’s Documents

235 Becker Response to Order re Sanctions against Tribe

238 Jurrius Reply

243 Tribe Reply

244-1 Becker Surreply

260 DCt Order

261 DCT Order re Unsealing

261-1 Arbitration Statement of Claims

261-2 Jurrius Counterclaims

261-3 Tribe’s Response

261-4 Settlement Agreement

262 Becker Statement of Fees

263 Jurrius Statement of Fees

269 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

270 Tribe Motion to Reconsider 260

273 Tribe Objection to 263

274 Tribe Objection to 262

276 Opposition to 270

280 Response to 273

281 Reply in Support of 270

Prior post here.

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion (again) of Tribal Remedies in Suit against LDS

Here are the materials in Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. F.D. (D. Utah):

1-1 Federal Complaint

10 FD Motion to Dismiss

11 Notice of Removal

19 Motion to Remand

19-1 DCT Stay Order

19-2 Redacted Complaint

32 FD Opposition

40 Reply

43 DCT Order

A related case, Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. B.N. (D. Utah), is stayed:

2 Complaint

2-1 BN Tribal Court Complaint

2-2 Window Rock DCT Order on Motion to Dismiss

2-3 Navajo SCT Opinion

17 BN Motion to Dismiss

23 Opposition

24 Reply

45 DCT Stay Order

Our prior post on the first order to exhaust is here.

Federal Court Refuses to Enforce Ute Tribal Court Order over Water Rights

Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe v. McKee (D. Utah):

55 Tribe Motion for Summary Judgment

55-1 Volume I of Appendix

60 McKee Cross-Motion

64 Ute Reply

68 McKee Reply

89 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Chegup v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation [banishment]

Here:

3-24-20 Appellants’ Opening Brief

5-22-20 Appellees’ Brief

6-5-20 Appellants’ Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Tenth Circuit Affirms United States v. Uintah Valley Shoshone Tribe

Here is the opinion. An excerpt:

We recognize that in interpreting federal statutes in Indian affairs we “provide for a broad construction when the issue is whether Indian rights are reserved or established, and for a narrow construction when Indian rights are to be abrogated or limited.” Felter, 752 F.2d at 1512; see also F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 224–25 (1982). In Felter, we determined the hunting and fishing rights of the individuals were not abrogated because the statute did not clearly abrogate them—this is a narrowing construction. But we cannot also conclude that the Termination Act implicitly gave the Uintah Valley Shoshone Tribe authority to exercise Ute tribal rights with respect to hunting and fishing, when the Act plainly established those rights within the Ute Tribe.

Briefs here.