Eastern District of California – Page 19

Federal Court Dismisses Winnemem Tribe’s NAGPRA Claims

April 2, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials:

DCT Order Denying Motion But DismissingNAGPRA Claims

USFS Motion to Strike NAGPRA Claims

Winnemem Opposition

USFS Reply

The court previously dismissed the tribe’s cultural property claims.

Susanville Indian Rancheria v. United States — Contract Breach Claim for Failure to Pay IHS Contract Support Costs

March 20, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Susanville v US Complaint

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 Susanville Indian Rancheria (“Tribe”), seeks money damages under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. (“CDA”), based on the Secretary’s repeated violations of the Tribe’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.

Susanville’s previous suit against IHS is here.

Materials in Cesar Caballero’s Counterclaims against Shingle Springs Miwok

February 25, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

11-Caballero Answer and Counterclaim 2-17-09

17-Tribe’s MPA re Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

22.1-Caballero Opposition 5-6-09

28-Tribe’s Reply re Motion to Dismiss 5-13-09

33-Order Granting MTD Counterclaim

Related cases here: federal criminal case, trademark case, and permanent injunction.

Shingle Springs Finally Wins Permanent Injunction against Man Claiming to be “Chief”

February 14, 2013February 25, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Amazing story. Cribbing from another’s description of the case:

Just after news broke that Tribe’s Red Hawk Casino was about to open several years ago, Cesar Caballero began his campaign to usurp the Tribe’s established identity. There are many fascinating twist and turns to this story, including Mr. Caballero’s conviction for obstruction of mail after submitting a fraudulent change of address form to have the Tribe’s mail diverted to his address. Earlier in the case (a few years back) he filed unsuccessful counterclaims seeking relief for alleged violation of his trademarks and challenging the Tribe’s status. The court dismissed the counterclaims with prejudice.

Here are the materials:

220 – Third Amended Complaint

236.1 – MPA re Summary Judgment Motion

258 – Caballero Response to Summary Judgment Motion

259 – Order Granting Summary Judgment And Entering Permanent Injunction

Updated Documents in Enterprise Rancheria Trust Acquisition Case

February 1, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are all of the materials now in the case consolidated as Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Community v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.) (we posted preliminary materials here):

Complaint here.

DCT Order denying TRO

Colusa Motion for PI

George Forman Affidavit in Spport of TRO

Citizens Motion for TRO

UAIC Motion for TRO

Consolidated Federal Opposition

Enterprise Rancheria Opposition

Citizens Reply

Colusa Reply

UAIC Reply

Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Salazar Denial of TRO and Additional Documents

January 31, 2013Kate Fort1 Comment

Complaint here.

Enterprise denying TRO and Mandamus

Patchak is indistinguishable from the present case because no Plaintiff claims an interest in the Proposed Site, meaning that this is not a quiet title action and the QTA’s limitation on suits related to Indian lands does not apply. Patchak squarely addressed the supposedly irreparable harm that Plaintiffs complain of and indicated that federal district courts do have the power to strip the federal government of title to land taken into trust for an Indian tribe under the APA so long as the claimant does not assert an interest in the land. In this case, Plaintiffs only seek to divest the government of its title. They do not assert an interest in the Proposed Site. Plaintiffs have therefore not shown that the mere act of transferring the Proposed Site into trust on February 1, 2013 constitutes irreparable harm, and a TRO is therefore inappropriate.

Enterprise Docket Sheet 01302013
US Opposition – Enterprise