federal court removal and remand

Massachusetts Gaming Claims against Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Survive Motions to Dismiss; Counterclaims Do, Too

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

88 Massachusetts Reply

95 DCT Order Denying Motions to Dismiss

An excerpt:

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)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

California Valley Miwok Tribe Again Fails at Recovering Foreclosed Land

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Burley v. OneWest Band FSB (E.D. Cal.):

22 OneWest Motion to Dismiss

23 Opposition

24 Reply

31 DCT Order granting Motion to dismiss

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs Silvia Burley and the California Valley Miwok Tribe (“Miwok Tribe”) brought this action against defendants OneWest Bank, FSB (“OneWest”), Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”), and Meridian Foreclosure Service (“Meridian”) to recover title over land and damages in connection with the alleged wrongful foreclosure and sale of the plaintiffs’ real property. On August 26, 2014, this court issued an order (“Aug. 26, 2014 Order”) dismissing plaintiffs’ case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and giving plaintiffs’ twenty days to file an amended complaint. (Docket No. 17.) Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserting claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691, et seq., the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq., and several state law claims essentially repeated from their original Complaint. (Docket No. 18.)

Prior proceedings are posted here.

Update in Massachusetts Suit over Gaming on Martha’s Vineyard

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the new materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):

37 Aquinnah Community Association Motion to Intervene + Proposed Complaint

39 Town of Aquinnah Motion to Intervene

41 Wampanoag Opposition to Town Motion

42 Wampanoag Opposition to Community Association Motion

48 Town Reply

50 Aquinnah Reply

60 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

62 Tribe Rule 19 Motion to Dismiss

Prior posts here and here.

Update in Massachusetts Suit over Gaming on Martha’s Vineyard

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):

37 Aquinnah Community Association Motion to Intervene + Proposed Complaint

39 Town of Aquinnah Motion to Intervene

41 Wampanoag Opposition to Town Motion

42 Wampanoag Opposition to Community Association Motion

48 Town Reply

50 Aquinnah Reply

60 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

62 Tribe Rule 19 Motion to Dismiss

Prior posts here and here.

Federal Court Dismisses & Remands Silvia Burley/California Miwok Challenge to Foreclosure of Tribal Building

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Burley v. OneWest Bank (E.D. Cal.):

14 Onewest Bank Response to Order to Show Cause

15 Burley Response to Order to Show Cause

17 DCT Order

Prior post with materials here.

Materials in Contract Dispute over Tribal Court Jurisdiction between Mississippi Choctaw and Health Care Vendor

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials so far in Mississippi Administrative Services Inc. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (S.D. Miss.):

1 Joint Notice of Removal

1-1 State Court Complaint

4 Tribal Motion to Dismiss

9 Response to Motion to Dismiss

14 Tribal Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

31 MAS Amended Motion to Remand

Materials in Silvia Burley/California Valley Miwok Tribe Challenge to Foreclosure of Residence/Tribal Govt. Building

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Burley v. OneWest Bank (E.D. Cal.):

1 Burley Complaint

6 OneWest Motion to Dismiss

13 DCT Order to Show Cause

And here are materials in the related matter, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Burley (E.D. Cal.):

1-1 Notice of Removal

8 DCT Order to Show Cause

Tribal Jurisdiction Matter Remanded to State Court Because Tribe Waited Too Long to Remove to Federal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are materials in Harvey v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):

2-1 Amended State Court Complaint

4 Ute Tribe Motion to Dismiss

15 Plaintiffs Motion to Remand

21 Tribe Opposition to Motion for Remand

28 Plaintiffs Reply

38 DCT Order Granting Remand Motion

Federal Court Finds Jurisdiction in Tribal Dispute with Massachusetts over Regulation of Gaming on Martha Vineyard

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials so far in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):

1 Notice of Removal

18 Massachusetts Motion to Remand

21 Opposition to Motion to Remand

25-1 Massachusetts Reply

31 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This lawsuit involves a dispute between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a federally recognized Indian tribe as to who has regulatory jurisdiction over civil gaming on Indian lands on Martha’s Vineyard. The Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe and related entities have taken steps to commence commercial gaming operations on tribal lands without a license from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts contends that by doing so, the Tribe violated a 1983 settlement agreement that subject the lands in question to state civil and criminal jurisdiction. 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, defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. The Commonwealth has moved to remand the matter to state court. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.