District of Utah – Page 8

The issue before us is whether a subpoena duces tecum served on a non-party Tribe and seeking documents relevant to a civil suit in federal court is itself a “suit” against the Tribe triggering tribal sovereign immunity. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, pursuant to the collateral order doctrine, we hold the answer is yes. We therefore reverse the district court’s denial of the Tribe’s motion to quash based on tribal immunity.

And the briefs:

Ute Opening Brief

Bonnet Brief

Ute Reply

Lower court materials here.

Ute Indian Tribe Sues State of Utah over State Prosecutions of Tribal Members for On-Reservation Conduct

December 11, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials so far in Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. State of Utah (D. Utah):

2 Complaint

3 Motion for PI

News coverage here.

Federal Court Dismisses Former Ute Employee’s Employment Contract Claims

November 12, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

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

7 Ute Motion to Dismiss

17 Ute Motion to DQ Counsel

26 DCT Order Denying Motion to DQ Counsel

32 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

Because plaintiff’s complaint does not, on its face, plead causes of action created by federal law, and because the plaintiff’s causes of action do not include, as an essential element, any right or immunity created by federal law, the court concludes that plaintiff’s claims do not meet the “arising under” standard for federal-question jurisdiction and that the court is therefore without jurisdiction to hear plaintiff’s claims. Accordingly, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and DISMISSES plaintiff’s amended complaint.

On what must have been a slow news day we posted the complaint here.

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Indian Preference in Employment at Office of Special Trustee

October 6, 2013October 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Hester v. Salazar (D. Utah):

3 Hester Complaint

7 MJ R&R

8 Hester Objection

9 DCT Order Adopting R&R

An excerpt from the R&R:

Because the Supreme Court has ruled in Mancari that Indian preference “does not constitute ‘racial discrimination,’ “ Mancari, 471 U.S. at 553, Mr. Hester’s claims that he was subjected to racial discrimination and that his civil rights have been violated are not valid. Therefore, because Mr. Hester has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, and it would be futile to amend his complaint, his complaint should be dismissed under the authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Based on that conclusion, Mr. Hester’s motion to appoint counsel and motion for service of process should be deemed moot.

Federal Court Dismisses Treaty “Bad Men” Claim in Police Killing on Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation

April 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the treaty claim materials in Jones v. Norton (D. Utah):

DCT Order Dismissing Treaty Claim

Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

Plaintiffs’ Opposition

Ute Indian Tribe Sued by Former Energy and Minerals Manager

March 5, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe (D. Utah):

Becker Complaint

From the complaint:

This action arises under and relates to an Independent Contractor Agreement between Becker and the Tribe effective March 1, 2004 (“Agreement”) by which Becker agreed to and did provide services to the Tribe as Manager of the Tribal Energy and Minerals Department, including the implementation of the restructuring and development of the Tribal Energy and Minerals Department. By the Agreement, the Tribe promised to pay to Becker a specified monthly compensation (“Compensation”) and agreed that Becker had a 2% participation right in specified revenues (“Participation Right”). The Tribe failed to pay to Becker the Compensation promised and the agreed upon percentage of the revenues as to which Becker had a Participation Right.