California Federal Court Dismisses Final Two Defendants in Acres Bonusing v. Ramsey (formerly Marston)

Here are the materials in Acres Bonusing Inc. v. Ramsey (N.D. Cal.):

90 First Amended Complaint

96 Motion to Dismiss

101 Opposition

102 Reply

105 DCT Order

Prior post here.

From DALL-E, an abstract painting of a judge slapping someone with a fish. Yeah, sure, it could be that.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in 1 Indian Law Case

Here is today’s order list.

The denied petition is Acres Bonusing Inc. v. Marston — cert stage briefs here:

Acres Bonusing Cert Petition

Opposition

Reply

Lower court materials here.

California Federal Court Dismisses Remaining Defendants in Acres Bonusing v. Marston

Here are the materials in Acres Bonusing Inc. v. Marston (N.D. Cal.):

78-1 Boutin Jones Motion to Dismiss

79 Janssen Malloy Motion to Dismiss

80-1 Rapport Motion to Dismiss

82 Response

83 Boutin Jones Reply

84 Janssen Malloy Reply

85 Rapport Reply

Prior post here.

Federal Court Dismisses Fort Peck Tribe from Suit over Wildfire at Turtle Mound Buffalo Ranch 

Here are the materials in Treasure v. Bureau of Indian Affairs (D. Mont.):

1 Complaint

11 Fort Peck Tribe Motion to Dismiss

18 Response

19 Reply

35 DCT Order

Prisoner Suit against Pokagon Tribal Police in their Individual Capacities Allowed to Proceed

Here are the materials in Hartsell v. Shaarf (N.D. Ind.):

20 Amended Complaint

34 Motion to Dismiss

35 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Federal Court Enjoins Pinoleville Pomo Nation Tribal Court Designed to Challenge Federal Court RICO Judgment

Here is the order in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):

363 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Shortly after judgment was entered in this case, PPN constituted its Tribal Court for the first time; there is no evidence that it ever existed in any meaningful way until then. Days after the newly appointed judge issued standing orders, PPN filed a civil complaint in that Tribal Court that seeks to (1) declare the judgment issued in this case invalid, (2) limit and control—indeed, vitiate—the scope of enforcement of that judgment, and (3) impose roughly eleven million dollars in liability on JW Gaming for alleged fraud stemming from the same loan agreement here. The lawsuit names not only JW Gaming but its attorneys in this matter and the bank at which PPN maintains accounts that was recently subpoenaed in the course of enforcement of the judgment. It is the first (and, as far as the record shows, only) case brought in the Tribal Court. Remarkably, up until the eve of the hearing on a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against the proceeding, which I ultimately denied, JW Gaming could not find publicly available information about how appear in that proceeding (despite being served with a summons), who the judge was, or what the rules were.

JW Gaming moved for an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue, which I denied. It then moved for the TRO, which I converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction once PPN’s counsel committed to placing the Tribal Court proceeding on hold. That motion is now ripe for decision.

It is critical that federal courts respect tribal sovereignty and tribal court jurisdiction. Tribes are sovereign nations. Their ability to govern themselves and enjoy the full benefits of sovereignty is unquestioned. Tribal courts, as arms of the tribe, are entitled to substantial comity and deference under established federal law. I previously denied JW Gaming’s motion for an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue out of these concerns. I remain vigilant about the compelling interest that PPN has in maintaining its sovereignty.

Those concerns, however, do not prevent an injunction against a Tribal Court proceeding that seeks to invalidate or interfere with the judgment entered in this Court. There are compelling interests in ensuring that enforcement of valid federal-court judgments is not interfered with, that JW Gaming is not required to litigate a lawsuit precision-engineered to invalidate and interfere with this one, and that third parties are not exposed to court orders or liability for simply enforcing a judgment or attempting to comply with the procedures for enforcing it. To the extent the lawsuit seeks to invalidate the judgment or interfere with enforcement, it is unquestionably meritless: a tribal court lacks authority to invalidate a federal court’s judgments or to dictate the scope of executing that those judgments. JW Gaming has shown it is entitled to a preliminary injunction to the extent that the Tribal Court proceedings attempts to invalidate, interfere with, or thwart the judgment entered here. I possess jurisdiction to enter this injunction to protect and effectuate the judgment. The doctrine of tribal court exhaustion does not apply because PPN exercised its sovereign power to clearly, expressly, and unequivocally waive it.

Briefs and related materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Suit against Flandreau Tribal Police Officers, FTCA Suit to Proceed [Updated]

Here are the materials in Ten Eyck v. United States (D.S.D.):

1 Complaint

9 Tribal Police Motion to Dismiss

17 Opposition

18 Reply

21 DCT Order

22 Plaintiffs’ Response to 21

23 Tribal Police Response to 21

26 DCT Order

Update (6.10.21):

57 Motion to Amend Complaint

65 Opposition

71 Reply

74 DCT Order Granting Motion to Amend

Update in Pinoleville Pomo Nation Gaming & RICO Dispute [updated and updated again]

Here are the updated materials in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):

178 DCT Order

184 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment

186 Plaintiffs Response

191 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment

192 Defendants Reply

196 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Case tag here.

UPDATE (7/7/2020):

210 Stevenson Motion

211 Steele Motion

212 Maldonado Motion

219 Tang Opposition to 191

220 Individual Tribal Defendants Opposition to 191

221 Plaintiffs Opposition to 210-212

222 Canales Opposition to 191

223 Reply in Support of 210-212

227 Reply in Support of 191

236 DCT Order on 210-212

237 DCT Order on 191

UPDATE (1/20/2021)

251 Tribal Motions

253 JW Gaming Motion

255 JW Gaming Response to 251

256 Tribal Response to 253

257 JW Gaming Reply

258 Tribal Reply

267 JW Gaming Supplemental Brief

274 Tribal Supplemental Brief

278 DCT Order

Update (3/28/2021):

286 Motion for Reconsideration

293 Motion to Quash

294 Opposition to 286

299 Reply in Support of 286

301 Opposition to 293

302 Reply in Support of 293

306 DCT Order

Update (6/8/2021):

324 Tribe Motion to Quash

333 JW Gaming Motion to Enjoin Tribal Court Case

335 Opposition to 333

337 Opposition to 324

338 Reply in Support of 324

352 Magistrate Order Denying Motion to Quash

353 Reply in Support of 333

Pinoleville Pomo Nation v. JW Gaming Development LLC Cert Petition

Here:

petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari.pdf

appendix.pdf

Question presented:

Whether an Indian tribe’s governing body can be stripped of its sovereign immunity from suit for actions taken by its members in their official capacities, as long as a plaintiff merely names the members individually and those officials will be bound by any judgment entered.

Lower court materials here.