Briefs in Short Term Loan/Sovereign Immunity Matter involving Lac Du Flambeau Ojibwe President

Here are the materials so far in Jones v. Wildcat (E.D. Pa.):





Federal Court Denies Immunity to Lac Vieux Desert Band’s Sovereign Lending Solutions Employee

Here are the materials in the matter of Pennachietti v. Mansfield, 17-cv-02582 (E. Penn. Dec. 11, 2017):

Link to deja vu suit.

Yet Another Suit against Western Sky Proceeds

Here are the materials in Smith v. Western Sky Financial LLC (E.D. Pa.):

15 Motion to Dismiss

21 Response

24 Reply

27 DCT Order

Another motion to dismiss or stay based on tribal exhaustion and the sham Western Sky arbitration/forum selection clauses. When will Rule 11 kick in?

Selected Materials in Commonwealth of Penn. v. Think Finance LLC


67-1 Think Finance Motion to Dismiss Rule 19

68-1 Think Motion to Dismiss Rule 12 and 17

70-1 Think Motion to Dismiss

73 Rees Motion to Dismiss

75 Commonwealth Opposition

93 DCT Order


In both Hotleva and Chehalis, the actions of the non-party would preclude the relief sought. In contrast, here the relief sought by the Plaintiffs does not require the non-party tribes to do or refrain from doing anything. For example, the Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the money earned by the Defendants only, not the money the tribes have earned, through the alleged scheme. FAC p. 40. The Plaintiff is not seeking a declaration that the contracts themselves are illegal, but rather a declaration that the Defendants’ conduct violates a number of state and federal laws.FAC p. 39. The Chippewa Cree were engaged in consumer lending prior to their partnership with Think Finance and, since the tribes are not bound by the outcome of this case, they would be permitted to continue that business. The tribes continuing their business (without the services of the Defendants) would in no way limit the relief the Plaintiffs seek. See Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 16 F.Supp.3d 605, 615 (M.D.N.C. 2014) (“[J]udgment…will not prohibit the lenders from lending money or from relying on other mechanisms to collect on their loans.”). The relief the OAG seeks is thus not “hollow.” The tribes are not required underRule 19(a)(1)(a).

Federal Court Affirms Immunity of Lac Vieux Desert Band’s Sovereign Lending Solutions (and Employee)

Here is the opinion in Bynon v. Mansfield (E.D. Pa.):

16-1 Motion to Dismiss

18 Response Brief

19 Reply

20 – Opinion

21 – Order

We posted the complaint here.

RICA Suit against Payday Lenders Tangentially Involving Tribal Sovereign Lending

Here is the complaint in Bynon v. Mansfield (E.D. Pa.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

The defendants in this case are conspirators in a usury scam. The defendants charged plaintiff Breanda Bynon interest at the rate of 182.02% A.P.R. on a $5,000 loan. Ms. Bynon paid defendants about $15,000, but defendants applied all of the money to usurious interest and then repossessed her vehicle claiming nonpayment. Ms. Bynon files this complaint for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., the Pennsylvania Loan Interest and Protection Law (“Act 6”), 41 P.S. § 201 et seq., and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c),


Sovereign Lending Solutions, LLC (“Sovereign”), is a loan company wholly owned by the Lac Vieu Desert Bank of Lake Superior Chippewa Indian Tribe (”Tribe”), and incorporated under tribal law. Sovereign originated the loan to Ms. Bynon, but is not named as a party because it is protected from liability under the doctrine of tribal immunity.


Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Suit against Repo Company Working for Tribal Payday Lender Dismissed in Federal Court

Here are the materials in Goldenstein v. Repossessors Inc. (E.D. Pa.):

35-9 Repossessors Motion for Summary J

41-1 Goldenstein Response

45 Repossessors Reply

53 DCT Order Granting Motion for Summary J

Contract Breach Claim against Delaware Tribal Officials Survives in Pennsylvania Federal Court

Here are the materials in Magyar v. Kennedy (E.D. Pa.):

11 Motion to Dismiss

12 Response

18 Reply

23 Motion to Dismiss Count 1

24 Response

31 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Count 1

An excerpt:

Thus, based upon an examination of the Second Amended Complaint and its Exhibits, we determine that Plaintiff has met his burden to convince us that Defendants acted beyond their official capacity and outside the scope of their authority when they terminated Plaintiff’s Agreements and failed to compensate Plaintiff for the services he rendered in June 2012. Accordingly, we conclude that the Second Amended Complaint alleges facts sufficient to persuade us that Defendants are not protected by sovereign immunity in connection with Count One of the Second Amended Complaint.

One of Urban Outfitters Insurers Not Required to Indemnify in Navajo Nation Trademark Suit

Here are the materials in Hanover Insurance Co. v. Urban Outfitters (E.D. Pa.):

DCT Memorandum

Hanover Insurance Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

Urban Outfitters Response

Link to the Navajo suit.