Eleventh Circuit – Page 7

Eleventh Circuit Holds Hollywood Mobile Estates Does Not Have Standing to Sue Seminole Tribe/Interior in Tribal Lands Repossession Case

May 24, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. And here are the briefs.

An excerpt:

This appeal presents issues of constitutional and prudential standing. The issue of constitutional standing is whether Hollywood Mobile Estates Limited alleged an injury fairly traceable to the Secretary of the Interior or redressable by the district court in a complaint that alleged that the Seminole Tribe of Florida had threatened to repossess tribal property in violation of a lease between Hollywood and the Tribe. After the Tribe repossessed the leased property, the district court denied, as futile, the motion of Hollywood for leave to amend the complaint to request injunctive relief against the Secretary under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. That decision raises an issue of prudential standing: whether the interests of Hollywood are within the zone of interests protected by the Indian Long–Term Leasing Act, 25 U.S.C. § 415, and its accompanying regulations. Because we conclude that Hollywood lacked constitutional standing to maintain its complaint, we vacate in part the judgment entered by the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because we also conclude that Hollywood lacked prudential standing to sue the Secretary, we affirm the denial of the motion for leave to amend the complaint as futile.

Eleventh Circuit Holds Hollywood Mobile Estates May Seek Injunctive Relief against Seminole Tribe…

May 12, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

…reversing the district court below. Here is the unpublished opinion (thanks to R.S.): 11th Circuit decision.

The trial court now has ordered a briefing schedule to determine whether Hollywood Mobile Estates is entitled to an order restoring its lease and ordering the Tribe to allow them to re-enter its lands. Here: Omnibus Order

Appellate briefs are here.

Tribal Amicus Brief in Florida Challenge to Health Care Reform Pending in 11th Circuit

April 8, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

349 tribes signed on (either directly or through a tribal organization) and every plaintiff state in which tribes are located has at least one tribe as signatory. The briefing schedule will end on May 25, 2011. Oral argument has been scheduled for Wednesday June 8.

Here is the brief: NIHB Amicus Brief

11th Circuit Affirmed Conviction of Fake Indians Selling Tribal Membership to Undocumented Aliens

February 14, 2011February 12, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in United States v. Watson:

Lower courts materials here.

Tribal Brief in Hollywood Mobile Estates v. Cypress 11th Circuit Appeal

December 16, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here: Appellee Brief.

The remainder of the briefs and lower court materials are here.

Eleventh Circuit Dismisses Miccosukee Challenge to Federal Government’s Alteration of the Tamiami Trail

September 16, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the two opinions from the Eleventh Circuit in Miccosukee Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps and Miccosukee Tribe v. LaHood. Both hold that Congress stripped jurisdiction from the federal courts to hear the Miccosukee’s challenges to the alteration (replacing a mile of the road with a bridge to let more water in to the Everglades).

Briefs in Miccosukee Decision on Enforcement of a Tribal Court Judgment in 11th Circuit

June 6, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Initial Brief appellant

Answer brief Appellee

Reply brief

Earlier posting with opinion here.

Eleventh Circuit Holds that Indian Tribes Cannot Sue to Enforce Tribal Court Judgment against Parties Located in the Same State

May 29, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Baffling.

Here is the opinion in Miccosukee Tribe v. Kraus-Anderson Constr. Co.: 11th Circuit Opinion

And here is the Tribe’s complaint, which includes the 166-page tribal court opinion as an attachment: Miccosukee Complaint w Tribal Court Decision

Here is the court’s summary of the case:

In 2004, Kraus-Anderson Construction Company (“Kraus-Anderson”) sued the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (the “Tribe”) for breach of contract in the Miccosukee Tribal Court. The Tribe denied liability and counterclaimed, alleging that Kraus-Anderson was the breaching party. Following a trial on the merits, the Tribal Court denied Kraus-Anderson’s claims and, finding for the Tribe on its counterclaim, awarded the Tribe a judgment of $1.65 million. Kraus-Anderson petitioned the Tribe’s Business Council for leave to appeal the judgment to the Tribe’s General Council, which acts as the Tribal Court of Appeals. The Council denied Kraus-Anderson’s petition.

Kraus-Anderson refused to satisfy the Tribal Court’s judgment, so the Tribe brought suit against Kraus-Anderson in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida to enforce it. As an affirmative defense, Kraus-Anderson alleged that, in denying its petition for leave to appeal the Tribal Court’s judgment, the Business Council denied it due process of law, thereby rendering the judgment void. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court, relying on principles of comity, held the judgment unenforceable and granted Kraus-Anderson summary judgment. The Tribe now appeals. We reverse and remand the case to the district court with the instruction that it dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

I’m willing to bet a dollar that the real reason for the 11th Circuit’s decision is based entirely on the fact that the tribal council sits as the tribal appellate court.

If anyone has the appellate briefs, please send. 🙂

Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Seminole Tribe Cancellation of Lease

May 4, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the briefs in Hollywood Mobile Estates v. Seminole Tribe of Florida:

Hollywood Mobile Opening Brief

LaSalle Bank Opening Brief

Federal Appellees Brief

[still looking for the Tribe’s brief]

Hollywood Mobile Reply Brief

LaSalle Bank Reply Brief

Here are the lower court materials.

Miccosukee Tribe (Mostly) Drops ESA Suit in the Eleventh Circuit

May 7, 2009May 7, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in this installment of Miccosukee Tribe v. United States.

An excerpt:

For centuries, a broad, shallow sheet of fresh water that covered most of South Florida flowed south from Lake Okeechobee to the Florida Bay. This phenomenon was the “river of grass” or Everglades, which supported unique and fragile flora and fauna. As so often happens with natural treasures, people sought to control and manipulate the Everglades for their own ends. After the State of Florida’s efforts to tame the Everglades failed, in 1948 the Army Corps of Engineers got involved.

The Corps undertook the Central & Southern Florida Flood Project, which it hoped would control flooding, divert water away from developing areas, provide a source for irrigating crops, facilitate recreation, and “enhance” wildlife. See Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 980 F.Supp. 448, 454 (S.D.Fla.1997). In order to bend the water to its will, the Corps created thousands of miles of canals and levees supported by scores of pumps, gates, and dams. This massive plumbing project drained the northern portion of the original Everglades for agricultural use and diverted water into distinct, deeper Water Conservation Areas for controlled release into the southern part of the original area, which became Everglades National Park. There followed what the government artfully calls “unplanned environmental consequences.” This case involves one of those consequences, which pits a sparrow against a hawk.