Eastern District of California – Page 23

Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Indictment of Former GTB Gaming CEO

September 9, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order in United States v. Livingston (E.D. Cal.): DCT Order Denying Livingston Motion to Dismiss.

And we posted the indictment for theft from a tribal organization here.

Winnemem Wintu Tribe’s Cultural Property Claims Largely Dismissed

July 20, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Winnemem Wintu Tribe v. DOI (E.D. Cal.): Winnemem Wintu Tribe v. DOI

Section 1983 Claim Against Tribe Fails

May 14, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion from the Eastern District of California (via a magistrate judge): Clark v Rolling Hills Casino.

Update on Timbisha Leadership Dispute

March 11, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Previous materials in this case (Timbisha v. Kennedy, E.D. Cal.) are here.

It looks like the plaintiffs, having had their motion to dismiss denied in February, and are now asking the court to remand the case back to California state court.

More recent materials:

DCT Order on Timbisha Motion to Dismiss

Timbisha Motion to Remand

Allen v. Mayhew: Magistrate Recommends Denial of Motion to Dismiss 1981 Claims against Tribal Gaming Officials

February 19, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the report: Allen v Mayhew Magistrate Report

The most recent motion to dismiss: Mayhew Motion to Dismiss

Previous orders are here.

An excerpt:

As to the two remaining defendants, reading Plaintiff’s complaint liberally, he alleges that while he was an employee of the Gold Country Casino in 2003, he took the defendant Mayhews’ grandchildren into his home. He later petitioned the Tribe for tribal membership for these children, and was told he would be reimbursed for his expenses regarding the children but was warned “not to go to the white man’s court.” However, despite this warning, Plaintiff filed guardianship proceedings in the California state court in September 2003. As a result, he contends defendants Mattie and Ricky Mayhew conspired together to file false allegations against him, with the intent to have his employment with the Casino terminated in retaliation for availing himself of the state court system and because he is white. He was subsequently terminated from his employment, allegedly due to these false allegations.

Friends of Amador County v. Salazar — Challenge to Buena Vista Rancheria Casino

February 14, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint: Friends of Amador County Complaint

Federal Court Holds that Tribal Sovereign Immunity Survives Removal to Federal Court

December 29, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

But suggests that the law is unsettled. Here is the opinion in Ingrassia v. Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino (E.D. Cal.): Ingrassia v Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino DCT Order

An excerpt:

At this point, the case law is not absolutely clear whether tribal sovereign immunity is more like the immunity enjoyed by the states or by foreign sovereigns in the circumstance of removal. There are a number of cases in which courts have applied tribal sovereign immunity after removal without addressing the issue. See New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 280 F.Supp.2d 1, 8 (E.D.N.Y.2003);Maynard v. Narrangansett Indian Tribe, 798 F.Supp. 94 (D.R.I.1992); Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Coeur D’Alene Tribe, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21776 (W.D.Mo. Nov. 19, 1997). In other cases where tribes removed, courts have pierced immunity but not based on waiver from removal. See Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. Arapahoe & Shoshone Tribes, 623 F.2d 682 (10th Cir.1980). These cases, in conjunction withSonoma Falls, leads to the conclusion that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity. However, the issue is not settled and appeal may be fruitful for Plaintiffs.

Fort Independence Survives Summary Judgment in IGRA Good Faith Suit

December 28, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Fort Independence Indian Community v. California (E.D. Cal.):

California Motion for Summary J

Fort Independence Motion for Summary J

California Response Brief

Fort Independence Response Brief

California Reply Brief

Fort Independence Reply Brief

Fort Independence DCT Opinion

An excerpt, listing the issues decided and the remaining issue:

The court grants summary adjudication as to the following issues:

* The State’s proposal comport with 25 U.S.C. section 2710(d)(3)(C)

* Forfeiture of the right to receive RSTF payments is not a tax, fee, charge, or assessment.

* The offer of permission to conduct Class III gaming is not a “concession.”

* The offer of exclusivity is a concession.

A material question exists as to whether the concession of exclusivity is meaningful. The matter will proceed for resolution of this issue.

Court Declines to Issue Injunction in Timbisha Band Leadership Dispute

November 24, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in the case styled Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. Kennedy (E.D. Cal.) — Timbisha DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs have failed to make a “clear showing” that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Defendants have raised multiple jurisdictional challenges that may bar Plaintiffs’ action. Moreover, Plaintiffs wholly ignore Defendants’ challenges to the merits of their causes of action. Although Plaintiffs establish that they are suffering harm, this Court is uncertain that Plaintiffs have standing to redress their harm through this action without interjecting itself into the internal affairs of the Tribe. In addition, Defendants have also established that they are suffering harm as a result of Defendants actions. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction that go beyond preserving the status quo to require Defendants to relinquish governing authority of the Tribe, something they believe they rightfully hold. Based on the uncertainty of the BIA decisions, the Tribe’s right to self determination and self-governments, and Plaintiffs’ failure to address the merits of their claims, this Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.