Minnesota Court of Appeals

Minnesota Court Vacates Transfer of ICWA Case to Tribal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in In re Welfare of R.A.J., in which the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s vacature of its own order to transfer a case to tribal court. The state court had denied efforts by the Leech Lake Band to transfer the case to tribal court, only transferring the case when the tribe agreed to certain conditions. We wonder whether a state court can place conditions outside of the scope of ICWA in order to agree to transfer a case to tribal court, a case it probably should transfer in the first place. We also wonder how a state court can re-acquire jurisdiction under ICWA without tribal consent.

The court’s syllabus:

The district court had jurisdiction to vacate its order transferring a child-welfare proceeding to tribal court before tribal court proceedings commenced, when the district court found that “misrepresentations were intentionally and wrongfully advanced [to the district court] to gain [its] agreement to transfer” the proceeding.

And an excerpt detailing the “misrepresentations” leading to the vacature of the court’s transfer:

Continue reading →

Minnesota Court of Appeals Dismisses Defamation Claim against Tribal Treasurer

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Oberloh v. Johnson, a case arising out of the Lower Sioux Indian Community. An excerpt:

In this consolidated appeal arising out of two defamation suits against a tribal treasurer, appellant argues that the district court erred by denying summary judgment with respect to his sovereign immunity and absolute privilege defenses. Because appellant is entitled to invoke sovereign immunity for conduct arising out of his official authority as tribal treasurer, we reverse.

Minnesota Court of Appeals Affirms State Criminal Jurisdiction over Tribal Members

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of a tribal member (Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Fond du Lac Band, Leech Lake resident) for firearms violations, holding that the court had jurisdiction under PL 280 in State v. Roy (opinion). Here is the court’s syllabus:

Under Public Law 280, Minnesota has jurisdiction to prosecute a tribal member for a violation of the felon-in-possession statute, Minn.Stat. § 609.165 (2004), because: (a) the inability to possess a firearm under Minn.Stat. § 609.165 is the result of the individual’s criminal conduct; (b) the prosecution does not affect the tribe’s treaty hunting rights; and (c) Minn.Stat. § 609.165 is criminal/prohibitory.

Fake Indian Tribe Wins Court Case in Minnesota

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed a trial court judgment excising financing statements filed in Minnesota by a fake Indian tribe — Pembina Nation Little Shell Band (not to be confused with the real Little Shell Band). Here is the unpublished opinion, which does not opine on the merits of the filings. But keep in mind, the underlying “tribal court” decision in which these filings arose stated that the individuals were “as agents acting in concert with the Commissioner of Revenue of the Minnesota Department of Revenue” — classic crazy tax protester language.

In re Giishig — Application by Felon to Change Indian Name

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is an interesting religious freedom case (opinion) in the Minnesota Court of Appeals in which a man (the opinion doesn’t say whether he is a tribal member or not) had changed his name to Ozhaawaskoo Giishig in 1992, while in prison. Under that name, he committed five felonies, and now wants to change his name again, and again for religious purposes. The case was remanded for more factual findings.

Fineday v. Roy — Minnesota PL280 Jurisdiction over Child Support

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Minnesota Court of Appeals in Fineday v. Roy (unpublished) held that state courts have jurisdiction over reservation Indians in child support cases. From the opinion:

Andy Joseph Roy is an enrolled member of the White Earth Band of Indians. He and Larissa Pauline Fineday have two children and live on the White Earth reservation. Fineday receives public assistance from the state. The county commenced an action to enforce Roy’s child-support obligation as a means of obtaining reimbursement for the public-assistance benefits. Roy moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but the district court denied the motion. We conclude that the district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the county’s action and, therefore, affirm.

Morgan v. 2000 Volkswagen — PL280 Jurisdiction in Minnesota

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the opinion syllabus: Minnesota lacks jurisdiction to apply the civil vehicle-forfeiture law, Minn. Stat. § 169A.63 (2006), when the conduct giving rise to forfeiture occurred on an Indian reservation and the owner of the vehicle is an enrolled member of the tribe on that reservation.

Here is the opinion from the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

Minnesota v. Davis — Minn. Ct. App. Decision on State Criminal Jurisdiction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Minnesota Court of Appeals issued an unpublished decision in State v. Davis, affirming state criminal jurisdiction over an Indian for an off-reservation crime.

Here is the opinion.

Shepherd v. Slade — Mystic Lake Casino Employee Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here, the Minnesota Court of Appeals in an unpublished decision declined to dismiss a claim for tortious interference with contract and other claims, denying a Rule 19 (state law) motion. From the opinion:

Appellant challenges the district court’s denial of her motion to dismiss respondent’s complaint on the ground that it is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Appellant asserts that the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (the tribe) is an indispensable party to the suit and that, because the tribe cannot be joined, the suit must be dismissed. We conclude that the tribe is neither a necessary nor an indispensable party and therefore affirm the district court’s decision.

Slip op. at 2.

The underlying dispute arose when the nonmember tribal casino employee was barred from the casino by the tribal court (and therefore terminated). The state trial court made disturbing statements about the tribal court, but the COA, while troubled, did not find those statements sufficient to reverse:

We agree that the district court’s comments are troubling. “‘Tribal courts have repeatedly been recognized as appropriate forums for the exclusive adjudication of disputes affecting important personal and property interests of both Indians and non-Indians.'” St. Pierre v. Norton, 498 F. Supp. 2d 214, 221 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 65-66, 98 S. Ct. 1670, 1680-81 (1978)); see also Lewis v. Norton, 424 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The issue is not whether the plaintiffs’ claims would be successful in these tribal forums, but only whether tribal forums exist that could potentially resolve the plaintiffs’ claims.”). The district court’s suggestion that the tribal courts could not provide an adequate alternative forum for Shepherd’s claims lacks foundation. The fact that Shepherd is the subject of a no-trespass order by the tribe does not necessarily mean that she cannot receive a fair trial of her claims against Stade in tribal court.

Slip op. at 10.