Some Claims against US Dismissed in Quapaw Tribal Members Trust Breach Action

Here are the materials in Goodeagle v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

DCT Order

US Partial Motion to Dismiss

Goodeagle Response

US Reply

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs in this case are Grace M. Goodeagle, Thomas Charles Bear, Edwina Faye Busby, Phyllis Romick Kerrick, Jean Ann Lambert, Florence Whitecrow Mathews, A rdi na Revard Moore, Tamara Anne Romick Parker, and Fran Wood, all of whom are enrolled members of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma. Plaintiffs commenced this action on June 28, 2012 by filing a complaint for money damages arising from Defendant’s alleged breach of fiduciary and trust obligations owed to the Quapaw Tribe and its members. The complaint contains eight causes of action.

On August 27, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for partial dismissal of the complaint, asserting that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction or that Plaintiffs had failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted. In the alternative, Defendant requested that the Court order Plaintiffs to file a more definite statement of their claims. Defendant limited its motion to the third, fifth, sixth, and eighth causes of action, and did not challenge the first, second, fourth, and seventh causes of action. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to Defendant’s motion on November 26, 2012, and Defendant filed a reply on December 23, 2012. The Court heard oral argument on June 4, 2013.

For the reasons explained below, Plaintiffs’ complaint generally meets the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8 of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) to show “a short and plain statement” of the basis for jurisdiction and Plaintiffs’ claims, as well as a demand for the relief sought. Thus, the Court denies Defendant’s request for Plaintiffs to file a more definite statement of their claims as to the third cause of action. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to the extent the third cause of action is meant to apply to more than losses under actual leases. That cause of action is not timely as to “hypothetical leases” where town lots might have been leased but were not. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action, as the consequential harm to Plaintiffs’ land from the mining activities does not constitute a continuing trespass, and therefore the claim is untimely. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action alleges mismanagement of trust assets, and also is untimely. Finally, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ eighth cause of action is not ripe for adjudication, and therefore dismisses it without prejudice.

Spokane Tribal Member Trust Breach Complaint re: Mining on Indian Allotment Dismissed without Prejudice; Amended Complaint Filed

Here are the materials in Villegas v. United States (E.D. Wash.):

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint without Prejudice

Federal Agencies Motion to Dismiss

Villegas Opposition

Federal Agencies Reply

First Amended Complaint

Previous materials here.

CFC Dismisses Trust Breach Suit by Blackfeet Tribe re: Black Mold Problems

Here are the materials in Blackfeet Tribe v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

DCT Order Dismissing Blackfeet Complaint

US Motion to Dismiss Blackfeet Complaint

Blackfeet Tribe Response

US Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Cheyenne-Arapho Tribes Allege Scary Federal Trust Breach

Here is the complaint in Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes v. United States (Fed. Cl.):

C&A Complaint

If the allegations are proven true, then this is unbelievable. Here is what I mean:

16. On or about November 10th, 2011, the Concho Agency received a request from a person purporting to act on behalf of the Tribe to transfer funds from the Tribal Accounts to a private bank account at the Citizens State Bank in Ada, Oklahoma (“Citizens Bank”).
17. In response to the request, on or about November 18, 2011 the BIA Concho Agency transferred approximately $760,225.00 from the Tribal Accounts to a private bank account at Citizens Bank numbered xx8645 (the “Transfer”).
18. The Tribe neither authorized nor had knowledge of the request, and at no time prior to the Transfer did the BIA Concho Agency contact or inform the Tribe about the request.
19. The owner of the account to which the Tribe’s funds were transferred had no legal right to the funds, which were held by the United States for the exclusive benefit of the Tribe and its members.
20. As a result of the Transfer, the Tribe’s funds were placed beyond the control of both the Tribe and Defendant.
21. On or about November 23, 2011, the BIA Southern Plains Regional Director vacated the actions of the BIA Concho Agency and demanded that the funds transferred from the Trust Accounts as a result of the Transfer be returned with all possible haste.
22. To date, none of the funds transferred from the Trust Accounts as a result of the Transfer have been returned to the Tribe or its Trust Accounts.
23. As a result of the Transfer, the Tribe was unable to provide its members with a year-end per capita distribution in December 2011.

Spokane Tribe Member Breach of Trust Case re: Mining on Indian Allotment Partially Dismissed

Here are materials from Villegas v. United States (E.D. Wash.):

DCT Order Partially Dismissing Villegas Complaint

Villegas Complaint

Dawn Mining Motion to Dismiss

Newmont USA Motion to Dismiss

 

Federal Court Awards Multi-Million Dollar Judgment to Alaskan Native Allotment Holder in Trust Breach Claim

Here is the 168-page opinion in Oenga v. United States:

Oenga v United States