Reply brief for Petitioner here.
Previous briefs and materials posted here.
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
Decision in Navajo Health Foundation — Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell
Here are the materials in Navajo Health Foundation – Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell (D. N.M.):
From the opinion:
Finally, the Court will grant the MSJ on two grounds. First, the Court will deem the Claim denied, because Dayish has not given Sage Hospital a “date certain” by which he will decide the Claim; rather, he conditioned his October 21, 2015, deadline upon Sage Hospital’s cooperation. Second, even if Dayish had given Sage Hospital a date certain by which he will decide the Claim, his proposed fourteen-month period for deciding the Claim is unreasonably long under the CDA. [4] Accordingly, even if the Court did not deem the Claim already denied, it would order Dayish to approve or deny the Claim by July 25, 2015.
Federal Circuit Rejects Yurok Tribe’s ISDEAA Contract Claim
Here are the materials in Yurok Tribe v. Dept. of Interior:
An excerpt:
The Yurok Tribe (Tribe) appeals from the Civilian Board of Contracting Appeals’ (Board) dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. J.A. 2–3. Because the Tribe has not been awarded a contract, we affirm.
Federal Court Issues Injunction Ordering IHS to Fund Navajo Health Foundation—Sage Memorial Hospital
Ah, it’s a little old, but here are the materials in Navajo Health Foundation – Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Burwell (D. N.M.):
An excerpt:
The Court held a hearing on February 12, 2015. The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court will order a permanent injunction; and (ii) whether the Court will order a preliminary injunction. The Court will not order a permanent injunction. The Court will, however, order a preliminary injunction to require Defendants Sylvia Matthews Burwell, Yvette Roubideaux, John Hubbard, Jr., and Frank Dayish (collectively, “the Defendants”), to fund the Navajo Health Foundation—Sage Memorial Hospital, Inc., according to the terms of: (i) the Annual Funding Agreement Between Navajo Health Foundation /Sage Memorial Hospital and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Fiscal Year 2013, filed January 13, 2015 (Doc. 21–2)(“2013 AFA”); and (ii) the Indian Self–Determination Contract Between Navajo Health Foundation/Sage Memorial Hospital and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, filed January 13, 2015 (Doc. 21–1)(“2010 Contract”), until this case is resolved on the merits. The Court will also order both parties to comply with the terms and conditions of the 2013 AFA and the 2010 Contract until this case is resolved on the merits. Among other things, this means that the Defendants must reinstate Sage Hospital’s coverage under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(“FTCA”), as Section 4 of the 2013 AFA provides. The Court will not require Sage Hospital to post a bond.
Prior materials here.
Navajo Health Foundation ISDEAA Suit against IHS to Proceed in New Mexico Federal Court
Here are the materials so far in Navajo Health Foundation — Sage Memorial Hospital v. Burwell (D. N.M.):
8 HHS Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
37 DCT Denying Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
An excerpt:
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(3) or Motion to Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1401(a),1 filed November 25, 2014 (Doc. 8)(“Motion”). The Court held a hearing on January 27, 2015. The primary issues are: (i) whether the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico is a proper venue for this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(A); (ii) whether the District of New Mexico is a proper venue for this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B); and (iii) whether the Court will transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). First, the Court concludes the District of New Mexico is a proper venue for this case under § 1391(e)(1)(A), because Defendant Frank Dayish is domiciled in New Mexico. Second, the Court holds that the District of New Mexico is not a proper venue for this case under § 1391(e)(1)(B), because a “substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim” did not occur in New Mexico. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)(B). Third, the Court will not transfer the case to the District of Arizona under § 1404(a), because Sage Hospital filed suit in the District of New Mexico, and because the District of New Mexico is a more convenient forum for the witnesses, the parties, and for obtaining the relevant documents than the District of Arizona is. Consequently, the Court will deny the Motion.
Navajo Sues Interior over Failure to Approve 638 Compact re: Tribal Judiciary
Here is the complaint in Navajo Nation v. United States (D. D.C.):
An excerpt:
This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and money damages brought against the Department and the Secretary for Defendants’ violations of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, P.L. 93-638, as amended and codified at 25 U.S.C. § 450 et seq. (“ISDEAA”), and regulations promulgated thereunder, and for Defendants’ breach of a contract made under the ISDEAA with the Navajo Nation (“Nation”). The Nation submitted its annual funding agreement (“AFA”) proposal for operations of the Navajo Nation Judicial Branch for the 2014 calendar year (“CY 2014”) to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), an agency of the United States Department of the Interior (“Department”), and the BIA failed to take the statutorily required action to approve or lawfully decline that proposal before the expiration of the 90-day period set forth in the ISDEAA and regulations promulgated thereunder. Therefore, as a matter of law, the CY 2014 AFA must be deemed approved as proposed by the Nation. Pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. (“CDA”), and sections 110(a) and (d) of the ISDEAA, 25 U.S.C. § 450m-1(a) and (d), the Nation submitted to the BIA a claim seeking relief from the Defendants’ breaches of this deemed-approved contract (No. A12AV00698: the “Contract”) and CY 2014 AFA. The Contract and the CY 2014 AFA are collectively referred to herein as the “CY 2014 Agreement.” The BIA improperly disclaimed the authority to decide the Nation’s CDA claim and thereby denied it. The Nation brings this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendants’ violations of the ISDEAA and $15,762,985 in damages for their breach of the CY 2014 Agreement, plus statutory interest from January 3, 2014.
Pyramid Lake Tribe Prevails in Suit against IHS
Here are the materials in Pyramid Lake Tribe v. Burwell (D. D.C.):
Maniilaq Association Wins ISDEAA Dispute with HHS
Here are the materials in Maniilaq Association v. Burwell (D. D.C.):
17 Maniilaq Motion for Summary J
An excerpt:
Plaintiff Maniilaq Association (“Maniilaq” or “plaintiff”) administers healthcare systems through a self-determination compact and annual funding agreements under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”), 25 U.S.C. § 458aaa, et seq. Plaintiff is seeking a declaration that a lease with the Indian Health Service (“IHS” or “defendant”) for one of the clinics Maniilaq operates under its self-determination contract is incorporated into Maniilaq’s 2013 funding agreement as a matter of law. Pending before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment.1 For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and DENIES Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment. An appropriate Order accompanies this opinion.
Federal Court Rules Tribal Officers Not Immune; Tort Claims May Proceed against Tribal Police (Black v. US)
This is the third ruling in Black v. United States (W.D. Wash.):
53 Joint Tribal Motion to Dismiss
Claims against the tribes are dismissed. The court dismissed Kitsap County here. And the US here.
Update in Black v. US — Tort Claims Related to Shooting by Tribal Police
Here are the updated materials in Black v. United States (W.D. Wash.):
46 Kitsap County Motion to Dismiss
53 Joint Tribal Motion to Dismiss
62 DCT Order Dismissing Kitsap County Sheriff’s Office
Only the tribal defendants remain in the case. Prior post on this matter here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.