Here are the materials in Jamul Action Committee v. Stevens (E.D. Cal.):
22 Jamul Indian Village Motion to Fiile Amicus Brief
22-1 Jamul Indian Village Motion to Dismiss
30 Jamul Action Committee Response to Jamul Indian Village
31 Jamul Action Committee Response to Feds
34 Jamul Indian Village Reply in Support of Amicus Motion
36 Jamul Indian Village Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
42-1 Jamul Action Committee Motion to Amend Complaint
We posted the complaint here.
Here are the materials in Burley v. OneWest Bank (E.D. Cal.):
And here are materials in the related matter, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Burley (E.D. Cal.):
Here:
30 DCT Order Granting Injunction
An excerpt:
On July 7, 2014, the court was prepared to hear arguments regarding the entry of a preliminary injunction and whether the court should enter a broader injunction than requested by plaintiff with respect to class III gaming activity on Indian lands of the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties informed the court they had reached a stipulation to entry of a preliminary injunction in substantially the same form as the temporary restraining order entered in this action on June 18, 2014. The parties also advised that upon entry of the preliminary injunction order, they agreed to a stay of all further litigation pending a status conference in October 2014.
Here are additional filings in State of California v. Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians (E.D. Cal.):
22 – Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians’ Third Party Complaint
23-1 – Second Declaration of Vice Chairman David Swearinger
26 – Opposition to Supplemental Brief Regarding Expansion of Existing Injunctive Relief
Here are the updated materials in State of California v. Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians (E.D. Cal.):
An excerpt:
Based upon the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the State’s motion for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED without requiring the State to post security, and that the Tribe, and all of its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons acting under the Tribe’s direction and control, including both factions or groups currently claiming to constitute the tribal government, are hereby ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from:
1. Attempting to disturb, modify or otherwise change the circumstances currently in effect with respect to operation of the Rolling Hills Casino in Corning, California.
2. Deploying any armed personnel of any nature within 100 yards from the Casino, the property on which the Casino is located, and tribal properties surrounding the Casino including the nearby hotels, gas station, and RV park (collectively, Tribal Properties).
3. Possessing, carrying, displaying, or otherwise having firearms on the Tribal Properties. This order will remain in effect until 6 p.m. on July 2, 2014 unless modified by the court before then, or extended by the court to continue in effect thereafter. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(2).
At the preliminary injunction hearing on June 30, 2014, the court will entertain further argument regarding whether the court should enter a broader injunction preventing any class III gaming activity on Paskenta lands. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii). Any supplemental briefing advancing this position must be filed by June 23, and any opposition briefing by June 27; no brief shall exceed 20 pages.
Complaint and motion here.
Here are the materials so far in State of California v. Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians (E.D. Cal.):
The 11th Circuit found the opposite on this issue, leaving open the possibility of an eventual circuit split.
Defendants invoked the jurisdiction of the federal courts to
raise a jurisdictional defense that could equally have been
raised in the state court. As the court recognized in its January
9, 2014 Order, “there appears no principled reason for defendants to have removed the action before asserting immunity.” (ECF No. 40.) Defendants have advanced none in their briefing or at oral argument. The court therefore finds that the Tribe has unequivocally waived any claim of sovereign immunity through removal. And, as defendants Health Program, Health Board, and Brenda Adams’s assertions of sovereign immunity derive from the Tribe’s sovereign immunity, subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims against these defendants is also proper.
Briefs will be posted this afternoon.
44 Shingle Springs Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
45 Bodi Memorandum
46 Shingle Springs Reply
47 Bodi Reply
Previous materials here.
Here are the materials in Tavares v. Whitehouse (E.D. Cal.):
Here are the materials in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Tan (E.D. Cal.):
13-1 Ayala Faction Motion to Dismiss
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.