Here are the materials in Holguin v. Ysleta del Sur Pueblo (W.D. Tex.):
federal court removal and remand
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.):
1 Notice of Removal + Exhibits
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.
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:
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.
First Circuit Briefs in Luckerman v. Narragansett Tribe
Lower court materials here.
Massachusetts Gaming Claims against Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Survive Motions to Dismiss; Counterclaims Do, Too
Here are the updated materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):
65 Massachusetts Opposition to Rule 19 Motion
67 Aquinnah-Gay Head Community Opposition to 11th Amendment Motion to Dismiss
71 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Reply in Support of Rule 19 Motion
72 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss on Immunity Grounds
77 Massachusetts Motion to Dismiss
86 Massachusetts Officials Motion to Dismiss
87 Wampanoag Tribe Opposition to Massachusetts Immunity Motion
95 DCT Order Denying Motions to Dismiss
This lawsuit involves a dispute between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a federally recognized Indian tribe concerning regulatory jurisdiction over civil gaming on Indian lands on Martha’s Vineyard. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and related entities have taken steps to commence commercial gaming operations on tribal lands without a license from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth contends that operating gaming facilities without such a license would violate a 1983 settlement agreement that subjects the lands in question to state civil and criminal jurisdiction (and thus subjects them to state laws regulating gaming). Count 1 of the complaint alleges breach of contract, and Count 2 seeks a declaratory judgment.
The Commonwealth filed suit in state court on December 2, 2013. On December 30, 2013, the Tribe removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. On August 6, 2014, the Court granted motions to intervene by the Town of Aquinnah and the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association (“AGHCA”). The Tribe has moved to dismiss the AGHCA complaint on the basis of sovereign immunity and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; it has further moved to dismiss all three complaints (with leave to amend) for failure to join the United States as a required party.
On October 24, 2014, the Tribe filed an amended answer that included a counterclaim against the Commonwealth and counterclaims against three third-party defendants (all of whom are officials of the Commonwealth). Plaintiff and third-party defendants have moved to dismiss the counterclaims on the grounds of sovereign immunity (as to the counterclaims against the Commonwealth) and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
For the reasons stated below, the motions of the Tribe will be denied and the motion of counterclaim-defendants will be granted in part and denied in part.
We posted motions to dismiss here. Materials on the state court removal and remand motions here. Complaint here.
Tenth Circuit Briefs in Harvey v. Ute Indian Tribe (Federal Removal; Tribal Jurisdiction)
Lower court materials here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.