Here:
Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Vaughn
Federal Court Asks for Additional Briefing re: “Bad Faith” Exception to Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine in Grand Canyon Skywalk Case
Here is yesterday’s order:
The court stated:
On the day before oral argument, Plaintiff filed a supplemental statement of facts, including thirteen new exhibits, purportedly showing bad faith on the part of the tribe. Doc. 21. Plaintiff asserted for the first time at oral argument that this new information and the proffered testimony from the chairwoman of the tribal council would show that the bad faith exception applies. See Redwolf, 196 F.3d at 1065 (a party is exempt from exhausting its claims in tribal court where “an assertion of tribal jurisdiction is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith”).
By raising this issue at the last minute, Plaintiff has provided the Court with no briefing on the contours of the bad faith exception and has afforded Defendants little meaningful opportunity to respond. The Court cannot conclude that the bad faith exception applies on such an incomplete record. Because Plaintiff’s bad faith argument appears to be colorable, the Court will afford the parties an opportunity to brief the issue. The parties should address relevant case law on the bad faith exception, what evidentiary showing of bad faith is required, and the evidence each side claims in support of its position. Because time is important in Plaintiff’s claim, the Court will require the briefing in short order.
Materials are here:
Update in Grand Canyon Skywalk Controversy (Another One)
Update in Grand Canyon Skywalk Controversy
New materials in the developer’s effort to avoid the tribe’s move to using eminent domain to end the controversy:
GCSD Emergency Request for Service
Additional news coverage here.
Hualapai Tribe Votes to Exercise Eminent Domain over Grand Canyon Skywalk
Grand Canyon Skywalk Developer Motion for Reconsideration Denied; Case to Proceed in Tribal Court
Skywalk Developer Motion for Reconsideration
Here (with all its exhibits, too):
GCSD Motion for Reconsideration.
News article here.
Prior materials here.
Grand Canyon Skywalk Contract Dispute Materials
We posted the complaint and a motion for a TRO earlier here.
As Indianz reported, the federal court has dismissed the claim for failure to exhaust tribal remedies (and in heavy reliance upon the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in the Water Wheel case).
Here are those materials:
News Coverage & Legal Pleadings in Grand Canyon Skywalk Dispute
Here are the initial pleadings in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Vaughn (D. Ariz.):
And here is the article.
An excerpt:
Both sides have hired former U.S. attorneys: Paul Charlton, once the top federal prosecutor in Arizona, represents the Hualapais. Troy Eid, who held a similar position in Colorado, represents Skywalk Development.
According to the lawsuit, Jin negotiated a 25-year contract with a tribally owned company to build and operate the attraction for half of the proceeds. Jin claims to have received no revenue since the first year.
Jin previously had worked with Hualapai leaders to finance and establish helicopter, rafting and other tours on the reservation, where outside developers cannot operate without tribal permission.
Sarah Krakoff, a law professor and former director of the American Indian Law Clinic at the University of Colorado, said she is not familiar with the case but foresees political and economic damage if a tribe uses sovereign power to nullify a contract with an outside investor.
“There are risks for folks trying to do business in Indian country,” Krakoff said, “and if it is perceived that those risks are heightening, that could spell a concern.”
Robert Anderson, director of the University of Washington’s Native American Law Center, said Indian nations have broad authority over reservation activities and may be insulated from federal jurisdiction by sovereignty. Because of that, he said, tribes doing business with outsiders sometimes waive sovereign immunity for business purposes.
Anderson noted that the Hualapai Tribe will have to pay “just compensation” if it tears up Jin’s contract and risks being shunned by other investors.
Turtle Talk 