Materials in Chickasaw Nation Dispute with CVS

Here is the complaint in Chickasaw Nation v. Caremark CVS (E.D. Okla.):

2 Complaint

Most of the other pleadings are sealed.

Here are the materials in Caremark LLC v. Chickasaw Nation (D. Ariz.):

1 Petition to Compel Arbitration

13 Motion to Compel Arbitration

20 Response

26 Reply

28 DCt Order

And here are the briefs so far in Caremark LLC v. Chickasaw Nation (9th Cir.):

Opening Brief

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Federal Indictment of Patrick Dwayne Murphy

Here are relevant materials in United States v. Murphy (E.D. Okla.):

14 Indictment

68 Motion to Dismiss — Statute of Limitations

69 Motion to Dismiss — Pre-Indictment Delay

84 US Response to 69

108 DCT Order Denying 68

109 DCT Order Denying 69

E.D. Okla. Rules in Favor of Cherokee Nation and Remands UKB Trust Application

Download the documents and materials in the matter of The Cherokee Nation v. Jewell et al, 14-cv-00428 (E.D. Okla. May 31, 2017):

The Court ruled a 2011 BIA decision approving an amended land into trust application of the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee was arbitrary and capricious. On remand, the BIA must obtain Cherokee Nation’s consent to the application per its treaty rights over former reservation land, give full consideration to the jurisdictional conflicts between Cherokee Nation and UKB, the resulting administrative burdens on the BIA, and the effects of Carcieri.

Link: Previous posts

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town Loses Challenge Related to Wetumka Project

Here are the materials in Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town v. United States (E.D. Okla.):






Title Action against Muscogee (Creek) Nation Trust Lands Dismissed

Here are the materials in Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town v. United States (E.D. Okla.):

182 Muscogee Creek Motion to Dismiss

185 Response

186 US Acquiescence

188 Reply

193 DCT Order

Update in Cherokee Nation Risperdal Suit

Here are the materials in Cherokee Nation v. Johnson & Johnson (E.D. Okla.):

18 Cherokee Nation Motion to Remand to State Court

19 Opposition

20 Reply

22 DCT Order Deferring Remand

Federal Court Decides Matter Involving ERISA and Tribal Court Jurisdiction

Here are the materials in Life Insurance Company of North America v. Hudson Insurance Company (E.D. Okla.):

16 Motion to Dismiss

18 Response

19 Reply

20 DCT Order

An excerpt:

LINA argues that tribal exhaustion does not apply to an ERISA case. The exhaustion of tribal remedies requirement was modified in El Paso Natural Gas Company v.  Neztsosie, 526 U.S. 473 (1999). In that case, the Supreme Court held that the tribal exhaustion requirement did not apply to a case involving the Price-Anderson Act, a statute with a broad preemptive scheme. LINA argues that the Northern District of Oklahoma has since held that like the Price-Anderson Act at issue in Neztsosie, ERISA preempts state and tribal court claims “related to benefit plans falling under its purview” and concluded that abstention would be inappropriate. Vandever v. Osage Nation Enterprise, Inc., No. 06-CV-380-GKF-TLW, 2009 WL 702776, at *5 (March 16, 2009 N.D. Okla.) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1144). See also Coppe v. Sac & Fox Casino Healthcare Plan, No. 14-2598-RDR, 2015 WL 1137733 (March 13, 2015 D. Kansas). This court agrees. 

Hudson argues, however, that Vandever is not controlling in this case because suits between insurers for reimbursement of benefits paid are not pre-empted by ERISA. Hudson is correct. Complete preemption under ERISA “is limited to claims brought under § 502(a), and that provision, in turn, is limited by its terms to claims ‘by a participant or beneficiary’ of an ERISA-regulated plan ‘to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan, to enforce his rights under the terms of the plan or to clarify his rights to future benefits under the terms of the plan.’” Hansen v. Harper Excavating, Inc., 641 F.3d 1216, 1221-22 (10th Cir. 2011) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1)(B)).