As Indianz reported, the Eastern District of New York delayed ruling on the City’s motion for a preliminary injunction and rejected a sovereign immunity from the smokeshops. Here is the order — march-16-dct-order
Here is our earlier post that includes the complaint.
The US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York indicted “reservation retailers” for violations of the Contraband Cigarettes Trafficking Act and of RICO. The defendants moved to dismiss the RICO charge. Here is the opinion denying the motion — us-v-morrison-dct-order
Here is the opinion denying the motion for reconsideration — milhelm-attea-dct-order
Here are the earlier materials.
This is a Section 1983 complaint by the Nation, who alleges Suffolk County law enforcement prevented potential smoke shop customers from entering the Poospatuck reservation on Dec. 6.
In Gristede Foods v. Unkechauge Nation/Shinnecock Trading Post, the district court refused to dismiss a Lanham Act claim against a tribal retailer. The plaintiff alleges that the retailer promised tax-free sales, but didn’t deliver. This is the second motion to dismiss denied by the court.
From the opinion:
The City of New York has brought an Amended Complaint against the above-captioned defendants, a group of cigarette wholesalers who are state-licensed cigarette stamping agents. The principal [*2] contention of the City is that the wholesalers violate the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act (“CCTA”), 18 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq., by shipping in excess of 10,000 unstamped cigarettes to reservation retailers who re-sell the cigarettes to the public. According to the City, New York Tax Law § 471 requires that cigarettes sold to Native Americans for re-sale to the public must be taxed, and that the defendant agents are responsible for collecting the tax by purchasing tax stamps from the New York State Tax Commission and affixing them to cigarette packages. The City brings additional state law claims under New York Tax Law § 484, the Cigarette Marketing Standards Act, as well as a public nuisance claim. Defendants have moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(7). For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motions to dismiss are denied.
Here are the materials:
Here is a link to the opinion. Gaming Court Decision (October 31, 2007):
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3
Here is the tribe’s Shinnecock Trial Brief
and here is the tribe’s proposed findings of fact: Shinnecock Proposed Findings of Fact
Turtle Talk 