Here:
DCT Order on Motion to Intervene
Previous materials are here.
Eastern District of California
Former GTB Economic Development Corp. CEO Jeff Livingston Sentenced to 24 Months for Defrauding Chukchansi Casino
From the Tribal Justice News release of October 7, 2011:
Former General Manager of Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino Sentenced for Defrauding Casino (U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California)
U.S. Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced that United States District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill sentenced Jeff Livingston, 51, of Las Vegas to 24 months in prison for his conviction on six counts of mail fraud and three counts of theft committed during his employment as the general manager of Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino. The evidence at trial showed that Livingston, Chukchansi’s general manger, executed a scheme to defraud Chukchansi by making a series of personal purchases using his business credit card and other Chukchansi funds. Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino is owned and operated by the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe in Madera County.
Our posts on Livingston’s motion to dismiss and indictment are here and here, respectively.
The rest of the Tribal Justice News release for October 7, 2011 is here:
Challenge to Buena Vista Mi-Wuk Compact Dismissed under Rule 19
Here are the materials in Friends of Amador County v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Dismissing FAC Complaint
FAC Opposition to Tribal Motion
Federal Court Affirms BIA Decision Ordering Laytonville Rancheria to Re-Enroll 22 Former Members
Here are the materials in Cahto Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria v. Dutschke (E.D. Cal.):
Motion Briefs in Nonmember Challenge to Mooretown Rancheria Development
Here are the materials in Robinson v. United States (E.D. Cal.):
US Motion to Dismiss Robinson Complaint
US Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss
This case has already been dismissed before, see here.
Claims to Benefits from Table Mountain Rancheria Restoration Dismissed
Here are the materials in Lewis v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):
61 – Memorandum Order Granting Motions to Dismiss With Prejudice
50.1 – Tribal Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss SAC
52.1 Salazar – MPA re Motion to Dismiss SAC
53 – Opposition to TribalDefendants Second Motion To Dismiss
54 – Opposition to Salazar’s Second Motion To Dismiss
Federal Court Issues TRO Preventing Cal. Gambling Control Commission from Releasing Funds in Accordance with IRS Levy
Here are the materials so far in Alturas Indian Rancheria v. California Gambling Control Commission (E.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Granting Alturas TRO
H/T Pechanga.
Federal Court Affirms Interior Trust Acquisition for Karuk Tribe
Here are the materials in City of Yreka v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Granting Summary J to Government
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs argue that the regional director failed to consider the impact of gaming uses. (Pls.’ Mot. at 6:26–7:28; Pls.’ Opp’n at 4:22–28.) However, the Secretary need not consider “speculati[ve]” future uses of the land. See City of Lincoln City, 229 F.Supp.2d at 1124; see e.g., South Dakota I, 423 F.3d at 801, 801 n. 9 (holding that “the Secretary was not required to seek out further evidence of possible gaming purposes in light of the Tribe’s repeated assurances that it did not intend to use the land for gaming,” a letter from the then-state governor stating that he had been assured that the tribe would not conduct gaming on the land, and the tribe’s acknowledgment that “if it were later to seek to allow gaming on the land, it would fully comply with the additional application and approval requirements in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721”). As the IBIA’s decision explained the issue:
This fear … is entirely speculative. Nothing in the record suggests that the Tribe contemplates the use of the parcel for gaming. To the contrary, not only does the Tribe admit that the land does not qualify for gaming use under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a), but the Tribe contends that the renovated site is completely developed and could not feasibly or fiscally-responsibly be used for gaming even if the Tribe wanted it to be so used. Additionally Tribal Resolution No. 07–R–160, approved on December 19, 2007, explicitly eschewed the use of the parcel for gaming.
City of Yreka, 51 IBIA at 296–97. Accordingly, the regional director adequately considered the tribe’s purpose for the land.
Jackson Band Miwok Wins Dismissal of Age Discrimination Complaint (On Reconsideration)
Here is the order and motion to reconsider:
Jackson Band Motion for Reconsideration
And the previous order declining to dismiss (and relevant briefs) are here.
Calif. Federal Magistrate Recommends Asserting Jurisdiction over Nevada Tribe ICW Case
Here is the court’s summary:
Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this action, which was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). As a grandparent of two children associated with the Washoe Tribe, plaintiff seeks custody of her grandchildren despite the previous action of the Washoe Tribal Court and the Inter-Tribal Court of Appeal of Nevada. Presently pending is defendant’s motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, for failure to exhaust tribal court remedies and for sovereign immunity.
The interrelationship of federal and tribal courts is a delicate and often complex matter. This case fits that mold. While it is clear that a federal court may have jurisdiction over a non-Indian’s federal claim, Boozer v. Wilder, 381 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2004), the parameters of that claim are not clear, i.e., jurisdiction over what. Nor does plaintiff’s complaint make clear what she seeks. Although alleging at one point that the Washoe tribal court lacked jurisdiction, and that she was denied due process in some manner, plaintiff does not clearly specify her precise claims or ask for any certain relief. In supplemental briefing on the jurisdictional question (Docket #25), plaintiff indicated that she wished the children returned to her.
The undersigned finds that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim by plaintiff, and that claim may include an attack on the tribal court jurisdiction and any constitutional claims that plaintiff may have, e.g., lack of due process in taking the children from non-Washoe lands, lack of due process in the tribal court, alleged fundamental right of a grandparent to custody over grandchildren in the circumstances of this case. The undersigned will defer ruling on the validity of any such claims until they are specified with greater particularity and further facts are known. Likewise, the undersigned will not attempt to define now what remedies may be available. The undersigned further concludes that plaintiff has exhausted her tribal court remedies. With respect to sovereign immunity, the court will defer ruling on such a claim until after an amended complaint is filed setting forth with preciseness the nature of plaintiff’s claims and appropriate defendants.
Here are the materials so far in Fred v. Washoe Tribe (E.D. Cal.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.