Here are the materials in the most recent filing by the federal court in Cachil Dehe Band v. Schwarzeneggar (E.D. Cal.):
California Motion for Reconsideration
DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
The summary judgment materials that are the subject up for reconsideration are here.
Here is the opinion in Garvais v. United States (E.D. Cal.) — Garvais v USA DCT Order
An excerpt:
The United States has now moved for dismissal arguing that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution because the only factual basis for such claim were the acts of tribal police officers and the tribal prosecutor, who do not qualify as federal employees for purposes of the FTCA. In response to the motion, Plaintiff concedes that any claim based upon the conduct of the tribal officials could not proceed against the United States. Instead, Plaintiff argues that the United States has misconstrued the factual basis of his claim. Plaintiff argues his claims against the United States are based upon the conduct of the investigating BIA officer, Officer Little. There is no dispute that Officer Little qualifies as an “investigative or law enforcement officer[] of the United States” for purposes of 28 U.S.C § 2680(h). Accordingly, the court DENIES the United States’ Motion to Dismiss based upon lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Here is the indictment in United States v. Jeff Livingston (E.D. Cal.). And an excerpt from the California AG’s office press release about the case:
The joint investigation revealed that Livingston made unauthorized purchases with the casino’s corporate credit card, including:
– A $20,000 down payment on a new Ford Mustang Shelby;
– A $5,000 down payment on a new Ford Fusion for the casino’s former Vice President of Marketing; and
– A $7,000 Mercedes Benz PGA National Golf Championship package in Maui, Hawaii.
Livingston attempted to conceal the down payments by making it appear as if they were part of a ten car purchase he made for a casino giveaway.
Here is the opinion in Greene v. Skibine (E.D. Cal.) in which the federal court dismissed the complaint sua sponte — Greene v Skibine DCT Order
Greene has made many efforts to gain membership in the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
So far, this case hasn’t proceeded very far, but the question of whether the court will use by analogy the good faith negotiation requirement under the National Labor Relations Act in this Indian Gaming Regulatory Act case has been decided:
In interpreting this good faith standard, courts have taken some guidance from cases interpreting negotiation obligations imposed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Indian Gaming Related Cases v. California, (Coyote Valley I) 147 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1020-21 (N.D.Cal.2001), affirmed by Coyote Valley II, 331 F.3d 1094. However, the NLRA and IGRA differ in some important aspects. For example, claims of bad faith negotiation under the NLRA are first reviewed by an administrative agency (the National Labor Review Board), see Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tomco Communications, Inc., 567 F.2d 871, 876 (9th Cir.1978). Under the IGRA, the initial determination is made by the court. Thus, while the NLRA caselaw provides some useful guidance, courts have not applied it to the IGRA “wholesale.” Coyote Valley I, 147 F.Supp.2d at 1021.
Here is the order — DCT Order on Motion to Compel (and the magistrate’s order before that — Magistrate Order on Motion to Compel).
Fort Independence has a motion for summary judgment pending (Fort Independence Motion for Summary Judgment). California’s response is due next week. Still waiting on an 11th Amendment motion. Maybe I missed something….
Here is the 60-page district court opinion in Cachil Dehe Band v. California — Calusa DCT Order — 4-22-09
Here’s the scoresheet:
For the reasons stated above, the court makes the following orders:
(1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss Picayune’s complaint in intervention is DENIED.
(2) With respect to Colusa’s First Claim for Relief in Colusa I, regarding Colusa’s priority in the draw process, defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED, and Colusa’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
(3) With respect to Colusa’s Second Claim for Relief in Colusa I and Picayune’s sole Claim for Relief, regarding the number of gaming devices authorized by the Compact, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and Colusa’s and Picayune’s motions for summary judgment are GRANTED.
Continue reading
The case is United States v. Baca, out of the Eastern District of California. The defendant, Baca, is being charged by the federal government for filming on government property without a permit and trespassing on a cultural resource. He was filming a tribal ceremony at Yosemite (Yosemite Big Time). He was convicted in a bench trial before a federal magistrate, but the district court vacated the conviction on the grounds that the magistrate should have recused himself for bias. Apparently, the judge has a hangman’s noose in his office, prominently featured in a local newspaper article.
It’ll be interesting to see how Baca’s defense (religious freedom, assertion that he is a religious leader, etc.) will play out in the next trial….
The BIA refused to renew the California Valley Miwok Tribe’s annual funding agreement under PL 638. The Tribe sued the BIA in the Eastern District of California, which has now dismissed on grounds the Tribe did not exhaust administrative remedies.
Once again, the Eastern District of California has refused to dismiss a Section 1981 complaint against tribal gaming employees of the Gold Country Casino, owned by the Berry Creek Rancheria of Tyme Maidu Indians. Here is the opinion — feb-20-2009-dct-order
Here is our earlier post, with the earlier order.
Two rival factions of the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe have been duking it out in federal court. One band sought a TRO preventing the enforcement of a BIA decision to recognize the other, but the Eastern District of California denied the motion on Dec. 23, on the grounds that adequate remedies at law remain, including administrative remedies. Here are the materials:
timbisha-v-kempthorne-complaint [includes BIA materials]
motion for TRO [includes Timbisha tribal constitution]
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.