Federal Court Denies Rule 11 Sanctions Motion against Native American Arts by Party Whose Arguments Were Borderline Frivolous

Here are the materials in Native American Arts v. Peter Stone Co. (N.D. Ill.):

367-motion-for-sanctions

370-opposition

371-reply

373-dct-order

An excerpt:

In that briefing, the defendant’s primary position was that the plaintiff was collaterally estopped from establishing standing. Its secondary position was that plaintiff did not qualify as an Indian arts and crafts organization under the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (“IACA”), 25 U.S.C. § 305 IACA. Both arguments were rejected as non-starters. Native Am. Arts, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74187, 2015 WL 3561439, at *5-7. An intemperate opponent might have called them frivolous, but the mere fact that a position is a loser does not make it frivolous.

Another:

As for this time, however, it’s worth noting that the defendant was unable to mount a challenge to plaintiff’s standing until six years into this litigation; that tends to further undermine defendant’s position that this was an obvious flaw in the plaintiff’s suit and one that plaintiff should have readily conceded and should have dropped its suit early on. Indeed, if it were such a frivolous suit it would seem that defendant could have put together a successful motion for summary judgment based on the standing issue some time ago, thereby avoiding many of the costs and expenses of which it now complains.

 

Federal Court Dismisses American Indian Arts and Crafts Act Claim for Lack of Article III Standing

Here are the materials in Native American Arts v. Peter Stone Co. (N.D. Ill.):

250 Peter Stone Motion for Summary J on Standing

267 Peter Stone Motion for Summary J

271-1 Native American Arts Motion for Summary J

279 Native American Arts Response to 250

281 Peter Stone Reply in Support of 250

323 DCT Order

American Indian Arts and Crafts Act’s Constitutionality Challenged

Here is the opinion in Native American Arts v. Peter Stone Co., out of the Northern District of Illinois  — Peter Stone DCT Order

And here is the brief of the United States as intervenor supporting the statute — USA Memorandum re Constitutionality of Act