Update in Massachusetts Suit over Gaming on Martha’s Vineyard

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Additional Update in Luckerman v. Narragansett

Here are additional materials in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (D. R.I.):

29 Motion to Correct the Record

33-1 Response

34 DCT Order on Amending the Record

Meanwhile, the tribe has appealed the sovereign immunity issue here to the First Circuit.

Prior posts on this case are here and here.

Federal Court Rejects Narragansett Effort to Dismiss Attorney Fees Suit on Immunity Grounds

Here are the updated materials in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (D. R.I.):

18-1 Narragansett Motion for Reconsideration

19-1 Luckerman Response

20 Narragansett Reply

22 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration

An excerpt:

On August 29, 2013, this Court denied Defendant Narragansett Indian Tribe’s (“Tribe”) motion to dismiss, but stayed adjudication of the case pending tribal exhaustion.1 Now, the Tribe has filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision (ECF No. 18), re-emphasizing the Tribe’s position that its tribal sovereign immunity bars the instant lawsuit, and asking again that the Court dismiss the claims brought by Plaintiff Douglas J. Luckerman. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

Earlier, the federal court remanded the case to tribal court for exhaustion purposes, post here. Other lower court materials here and here.

Douglas Luckerman’s Attorney Fees Suit Remanded to Tribal Court

Here are the materials in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (D. R.I.):

8-1 Narragansett Motion to Dismiss

10-1 Luckerman Response

13 Matthew Thomas Affidavit

13-1 Narragansett Reply

16 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Materials in Douglas Luckerman v. Narrangansett Indian Tribe

Here are the materials in this pending matter over an alleged $1.1 million in attorney fees:

Luckerman Complaint

Narrangansett Motion to Dismiss

Luckerman Opposition/Motion to Remand

Narrangansett Reply + Sachem Affidavit

News coverage here.