Eastern District of California – Page 17

Federal Court Dismisses Chukchansi Suit over Missing Bags of Money

March 10, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Tan (E.D. Cal.):

13-1 Ayala Faction Motion to Dismiss

14 Lewis Faction Response to Order to Show Cause

28 DCT Order

Prior posts on this suit are here and here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Shingle Springs of Miwok Indians v. Caballeros

February 28, 2014February 28, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is a trademark dispute between the federally recognized Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians and an unaffiliated man purporting to act as “Chief” of the “Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.”

Here:

034 – Brief of Appellant Cesar Caballero(81539037_1)

040-1 – Answering Brief of Appellee Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians(81902896_1)

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Denies TRO to Lewis Faction in Chukchansi Dispute

February 27, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order:

11 DCT Order Denying TRO

Complaint and motion are here.

Chukchansi Leadership Dispute Now a “Civil War”

February 24, 2014February 24, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here.

The February 11 from the BIA is here.

Pleadings in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Tan (E.D. Cal.):

2014 02 19 Aff of R. Lewis – ENDORSED

2014 02 19 Aff of R. Rosette – ENDORSED

2014 02 19 Complaint – ENDORSED

2014 02 19 Ex Parte App – ENDORSED

2014 02 19 Ex Parte Notice & Motion -ENDORSED

2014 02 19 MPA ISO TRO- ENDORSED

Cal. Miwok Tribe Sues San Joaquin Co. Sheriff to Prevent Seizure of Tribal Property

December 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Office (E.D. Cal.):

Complaint

Federal Court Rejects Alturas Effort to Force US to Pay Contract Support Costs

December 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Alturas Indian Rancheria v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):

129 Alturas Motion for Contempt

137 US Opposition

139 Alturas Reply

140 US Supplemental Brief

142 DCT Order Denying Motion

An excerpt:

This is a proceeding brought by plaintiff Indian tribe to determine whether the government is in contempt of the court’s January 13, 2012 order in this case (ECF No 126). Plaintiff asserts that the following portion of the court’s order required the government to pay “contract support costs” associated with the “self-determination” contracts it entered into with plaintiff:

The BIA has approved the Tribe’s selfdetermination contract requests for the fiscal years 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and shall transfer the amounts provided in those requests to the Tribe’s bank account … in accordance with the terms contained in the contract award documents.

Order of January 13, 2012, ECF No. 126 ¶ 2 (“Settlement Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment and Order”).

For the reasons that follow, plaintiff’s request to enforce the judgment or for a contempt order will be denied.

Our prior post on this case includes materials on the court’s original denial of the government’s motion to dismiss.