Here are the materials in San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority v. Jewell (E.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Lifting TRO and Denying Preliminary Injunction
News coverage here.
Eastern District of California
Federal Court Dismisses (with Leave to Amend) Indian Child Custody Suit against Mooretown Rancheria
Here are the materials in Hall v. Mooretown Rancheria (E.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Dismissing Complaint, Granting Leave to Amend
The interesting twist is the court’s treatment of Maxwell v. County of San Diego:
Pro se pleadings are liberally construed. … Unless it is clear that no amendment can cure the defects of a complaint, a pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to notice and an opportunity to amend before dismissal. … The court is unable to determine a jurisdictional basis for this action as presently written. Defendants Mooretown Rancheria, Feather Falls Casino, Gary Archuleta, and Francine McKinley are immune from this suit due to Mooretown Rancheria’s soverign immunity, or extension thereof. Also, any allegation made by plaintiff against defendant Rasmussen is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.
However, in the recent case of Maxwell v. County of San Diego, 697 F.3d 941, 954-955 (9th Cir. 2012), the Ninth Circuit refused to extend Cook v. AVI Casino to actions against tribal officials in their individual capacity. It is possible, although doubtful when viewing the present allegations, that plaintiff could amend the complaint to state individual actions.
Because the court lacks jurisdiction over the action as presently pled, the undersigned will not at this time reach any alternative arguments on the merits as if it had jurisdiction.
Federal Magistrate Grants Lewis Faction Motion to Intervene in Chukchansi Leadership Dispute
Update in Chukchansi Factional Dispute
Here are the updated materials in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Rabobank (E.D. Cal.):
Our prior post that includes the proceedings in what the district court called the “Ayala tribal court” are here.
Ninth Circuit Dismisses Fred v. Washoe Tribe Appeal
Here is the unpublished opinion.
Briefs:
From the opinion:
This is an interlocutory appeal asserting jurisdiction in this court under the collateral order doctrine. The underlying claims relate to the Washoe Tribe’s decision to take custody of the plaintiff’s grandchildren due to allegations of abuse by the grandchildren’s mother (the plaintiff’s daughter). After pursuing tribal remedies, the grandmother, Ms. Fred, filed suit against the Tribe in federal district court. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. The Tribe appeals the district court’s dismissal in its favor because the dismissal was without prejudice, arguing that the complaint should have been dismissed with prejudice for three reasons: 1) failure to exhaust tribal court remedies; 2) tribal sovereign immunity; and 3) lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Prior posts on this case here and here.
No Federal Jurisdiction in California Smokeshop Case
Here are the materials in State ex rel. Harris v. Rose (E.D. Cal.):
An excerpt:
Plaintiff State of California initially sued defendant Darren Rose in Shasta County Superior Court, alleging that Rose violated state law by selling certain unregistered cigarette brands and by failing to properly collect & remit tobacco excise taxes. Rose removed the matter to this court, alleging federal question jurisdiction. California now moves to remand, and seeks an accompanying award of attorney’s fees and costs if it prevails on this motion.
The motion came on for hearing on May 13, 2013. Having considered the matter, for the reasons set forth below, the court will grant California’s motion and remand this matter.
Leadership Dispute at Chukchansi — Federal Court Suit over Bank Accounts
Here are the materials in a case captioned Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Rabobank (E.D. Cal.):
Tribal Court materials:
Ninth Circuit Reverses BIA Decision Favoring Cahto Disenrollees
Here is the opinion in Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria v. Dutschke.
The court’s syllabus:
The panel reversed the district court’s judgment affirming the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs’ decision in favor of federal defendants in an action brought by the Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria, seeking to set aside the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ decision to direct the Tribe to place the names of certain disenrolled individuals back on its membership rolls.
The panel held that the Tribe’s governing documents did not provide for an appeal to the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Tribe’s disenrollment action.
Briefs are here.
Timbisha Leadership Dispute Dismissed under Rule 19
My favorite rule!
Here are the materials in Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):
2011 Elected Council Motion to Dismiss
Death Valley Council Opposition
DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
Prior post on the PI stage of this case here.
Consolidated Tribal Health Project Inc. v. US — Complaint against IHS for Constract Support Costs
Here:
An excerpt:
This is a suit against the United States for breach of contract and statute by the Indian Health Service (“IHS”), an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). Plaintiff, the Consolidated Tribal Health Project, Inc. (“CTHP”), seeks money damages under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. (“CDA”), based on the Secretary’s repeated violations of CTHP’s contractual and statutory right to the payment of full funding of contract support costs (“CSC”) for contracts entered under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”), Pub. L. No. 93-638, as amended, 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.