federal court removal – Turtle Talk

The court is concerned by a predicate question: whether the Tribe waived sovereign immunity by removing the action to federal court.

The issue is an open one in the Ninth Circuit. District courts to have considered it focus their analysis on whether tribal immunity is more analogous to states’ immunity to suit under the Eleventh Amendment, or to foreign nations’ immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 27 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. Courts taking the former position have found removal to constitute waiver, see, e.g., State Eng’r v. S. Fork Band of the Te–Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone Indians, 66 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (D. Nev. 1999), while courts taking the latter position have not, see, e.g., Ingrassia v. Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino, 676 F. Supp. 2d 953 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

Poarch Band Creek Motion to Dismiss State of Alabama Suit Challenging Tribal Bingo under State Nuisance Theory

April 10, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the updated materials in State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority (M.D. Ala.):

PBCI Motion to Dismiss

PBCI Notice of Removal + Exhibits

Prior post here.

News coverage here.

Federal Court Rejects Removal of Tribal Court Case; Remands to Tribal Court

March 13, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Star Trucking (D. Wyo.):

Star Trucking Notice of Removal (includes tribal court complaint)

NAT Motion to Remand

DCT Order Granting Remand

Federal Court Dismisses Casino Slip and Fall, Citing Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine

February 21, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Girmai v. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (S.D. Cal.):

Rincon Band Removal Notice

Exhibit 1 — State Ct Complaint

Rincon Band Motion to Dismiss

DCT Order Dismissing Girmai Complaint

Geroux v. Assurant: Federal Court Remand to Tribal Court Reconsideration Denied

March 19, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Materials here:

DCT Order on Motion to Reconsider

Union Security Insurance Motion for Reconsideration

Geroux Brief in Opposition to Reconsideration

Earlier materials in this interesting case are here.

Removal of Casino Slip and Fall to Federal Court Fails

January 9, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Keim v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (S.D. Cal.):

Harrah’s Motion to Dismiss

Harrah’s Response to Order to Show Cause

Keim DCT Order

Federal Court Holds that Tribal Sovereign Immunity Survives Removal to Federal Court

December 29, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

But suggests that the law is unsettled. Here is the opinion in Ingrassia v. Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino (E.D. Cal.): Ingrassia v Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino DCT Order

An excerpt:

At this point, the case law is not absolutely clear whether tribal sovereign immunity is more like the immunity enjoyed by the states or by foreign sovereigns in the circumstance of removal. There are a number of cases in which courts have applied tribal sovereign immunity after removal without addressing the issue. See New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 280 F.Supp.2d 1, 8 (E.D.N.Y.2003);Maynard v. Narrangansett Indian Tribe, 798 F.Supp. 94 (D.R.I.1992); Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Coeur D’Alene Tribe, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21776 (W.D.Mo. Nov. 19, 1997). In other cases where tribes removed, courts have pierced immunity but not based on waiver from removal. See Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. Arapahoe & Shoshone Tribes, 623 F.2d 682 (10th Cir.1980). These cases, in conjunction withSonoma Falls, leads to the conclusion that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity. However, the issue is not settled and appeal may be fruitful for Plaintiffs.

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this:

Like this: