Here are the materials in Avoyelles Water Commission v. Ward 3 Avoyelles Waterworks District (W.D. La.):
Louisiana Federal Court Declines to Allow Nonmember Tribal Court Defendant to Remove Case to Federal Court
federal court removal and remand
Montana Federal Court Declines to Accept Removal of Civil Suit from CSKT Tribal Court
Here are materials from McClure v. Futrell (D. Mont.):
Federal Court Dismisses Suit against Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Police over Off-Reservation, Pretextual Stop
Here are the materials in Holguin v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (W.D. Tex.):
Materials (so far) in Sauk-Suiattle’s Dam Suit against Seattle
Here are the early pleadings in Sauk-Suiattle Indian Tribe v. City of Seattle (W.D. Wash.):
Federal Court Remands to State Court Workers Comp. Claims against Tribal Insurer
Here are the materials in Mendoza v. First Santa Fe Insurance Services Inc. (D.N.M.):
12 Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
14 Response to Motion to Remand
17 Reply in Support of Motion to Remand
Related case here.
Federal Court Remands Insurance Dispute Involving Eastern Band Cherokee Gaming Entity to State Court
Here are the materials in Gemini Insurance Company v. Harrah’s NC Casino Company LLC (E.D. N.C.):
Ninth Circuit Holds Removal of Suit to Federal Court Does Not Abrogate Tribal Immunity
Here is the opinion in Bodi v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.
From the court’s syllabus:
The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act and California law on the ground of tribal sovereign immunity.
Following the Eleventh Circuit, the panel held that a federally recognized Indian tribe does not waive its sovereign immunity from suit by exercising its right to remove to federal court a case filed against it in state court. The panel concluded that the act of removal does not express the clear and unequivocal waiver that is required for a tribe to relinquish its immunity.
The panel remanded the case, leaving it to the district court to address on remand any remaining immunity issues.
Briefs here.
Federal Court Remands State Court Foreclosure Complaint against Narragansett Historic Preservation Office
Here are the materials in Feller v. Narragansett Indian Tribal Historic Preservation Office (D. Vt.):
First Circuit Rejects Narragansett Interlocutory Appeal in Sovereign Immunity Matter (Waited Too Long to Appeal Denial of Motion for Reconsideration)
Here is the opinion in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe:
An excerpt:
Surveying the foregoing, a prior duty panel of this court cleared the underbrush by dismissing as untimely any appeal from the denial of the Motion to Dismiss. Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, No. 14-1106, Order at 1 (1st Cir. Aug. 29, 2014). That decision obviates the need to decide whether we would have had jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal from the Motion to Dismiss. We do need to decide, though, whether we have appellate jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review the only order before us: the denial of the untimely Rule 59(e) Motion. For the reasons described below, we conclude that the denial of the Tribe’s untimely Rule 59(e) Motion does not qualify as a collateral order that we may review prior to the end of the litigation in the district court.
Briefs here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.