Eastern District of Wisconsin

Federal Court Interprets New Western Sky/CashCall Arbitration Language to Allow for Outside Arbitrator

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Williams v. CashCall (E.D. Wis.):

4 CashCall Motion to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration

16 Opposition

20 Reply

36 DCT Order

An excerpt:

So why didn’t the court appoint an arbitrator in Jackson? The court there held that the arbitration provision (like the one signed by Ms. Walker) was void “because it provides that a decision is to be made under a process that is a sham from stem to stern.” 764 F.3d at 779. Not only was there no authorized representative of the Tribe to preside over the proceeding, “the Tribe has no rules for the conduct of the procedure.” Id. (emphasis in original). By providing the option of using the consumer dispute rules of the AAA or JAMS, Mr. Williams’s contract solves that problem. And by allowing the parties to use an arbitrator from either the AAA or JAMS systems, the bias concerns that the Jackson court had about using a Tribal member as the arbitrator, id. at 779-80, are eliminated.

Mr. Williams’s only argument as to why the arbitration provision is unenforceable is that it calls for the arbitrator to apply Tribal law, which he contends is law that does not exist. (ECF No. 16 at 9.) But that is not true, as evidenced by substantive Tribal law on contract disputes, including contract cases in the Tribe’s courts, and the Tribe’s Commercial Code, Rules of Civil Procedure, Constitution and By-Laws, and Law & Code. (ECF Nos. 12-4, 12-5, 12-6, 12-7, 12-8, 21.) Mr. Williams does not raise any of the procedural or substantive unconscionability concerns expressed by the court in Jackson.

The most reasonable reading of Mr. Williams’s loan agreement is that he has the option of choosing to arbitrate any claims that he has relating to his agreement before the AAA, JAMS, or another mutually acceptable organization, applying the consumer dispute rules of the selected administering organization and conducted by an arbitrator from the selected organization’s system. Therefore, unlike Ms. Walker, Mr. Williams is required to pursue his claims against CashCall in arbitration. His complaint shall be dismissed.

Seventh Circuit Affirms Bribery Conviction of Former Ho-Chunk Official

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Whiteagle:

CA7 Opinion

And the briefs:

Appellant Opening Brief

Government Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

 

Federal Court Dismisses FLSA Complaint against Potawatomi Bingo Casino (Forest County)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are materials from Smith v. Potawatomi Bingo Casino (E.D. Wis.):

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

FCPC Motion to Dismiss

Ho-Chunk Tribal Member Sentenced to Three Years for Bribery

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the Pechanga report. And court docs:

DCT Denying Motion for Acquittal

DCT Minute Order on Sentence

Whiteagle & Pettibone Indictment

Pettibone Plea Agreement

USA Sentencing Memorandum re Pettibone

Federal Court Denies DOJ Effort to Withhold Docs from FOIA Request under Jicarilla

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Interesting case, in which the court rejected DOJ’s argument that it didn’t have to disclose inter-agency memos (here, between two departments in ENRD) because the agencies were in conflict. It may have ramifications, if it holds up, for post-Jicarilla trust cases if, for example, Justice and Interior (or Interior and NLRB) have opposing interests.

Here are the materials in Menasha Corp. v. DOJ (E.D. Wis.):

DCT Order Denying DOJ Motion

DOJ Motion for Summary J

Menasha Opposition

DOJ Reply

An excerpt from the opinion:

This case arises under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U . S.C. § 522. Plaintiffs Menasha Corporation (Menasha) and Neenah–Menasha Sewerage Commission (NMSC) allege that the Defendant, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), refused to provide records responsive to an administrative FOIA request (submitted to the DOJ on December 17, 2010). Presently before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment which raises the question of whether lawyers at the DOJ who represent separate client agencies with adverse interests in the same litigation can share confidential information with each other without waiving attorney-client privilege, work product privilege, and the deliberative process privilege. The Court concludes that the answer is no, and therefore denies Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and orders the requested information produced.

Wells Fargo Bank v. Sokaogon Chippewa Community (Mole Lake Chippewa) — Another Case re: Tribal Business Operations and Receivership

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Wells Fargo Bank v. Sokaogon Chippewa Community (E.D. Wis.):

DCT Denying Mole Lake Motion to Dismiss

Mole Lake Motion to Dismiss

Mole Lake Motion Exhibits

Wells Fargo Opposition

Wells Fargo Exhibits

Mole Lake Reply + Exhibits

A few excerpts from the opinion:

Continue reading →

Update on Wisconsin Oneida v. Hobart — Possible Case to Watch re Fee to Trust

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Complaint here.

Newer materials here:

Hobart Answer and Counterclaim

Oneida Motion to Strike Counterclaim

Hobart Opposition to Oneida Motion

Hobart Complaint against USA

Hobart Exhibits

Oneida Reply to Hobart Opposition

Menominee Challenge to Off-Reservation Fee to Trust Denial Update

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Not much going on, Menominee Tribe v. DOI is progressing:

Menominee Motion to Consider Extrinsic Evidence

Federal Response to Motion to Consider

Menominee Reply re Motion to Consider

Wisconsin Oneida Tribe Sues Village of Hobart over Stormwater Fees

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, yet another battle in the continuing war of Hobart v. Oneida (previous cases here and here): Oneida v Hobart Complaint.

News article here (H/T to C.W.).

Federal Court Dismisses Effort by Wells Fargo to Take Over LDF’s Lake of the Torches EDC

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Pretty incredible case. Wells Fargo, alleging financial improprieties by the EDC relating to an indentured trust, sought an order from the court appointing a receiver for the EDC. The EDC defended on grounds of sovereign immunity and that the trust had not been approved by the NIGC, apparently prevailing on the latter theory.

Here are the materials (the court has promised a written opinion “in due course”):

Wells Fargo Motion to Appoint Receiver

LDF Opposition to Motion to Appoint Receiver

Wells Fargo Reply re Motion to Appoint Receiver

Wells Fargo Supplemental Brief re Motion to Appoint Receiver

LDF Supplemental Response

Washburn Affidavit

Order of Dismissal LDF