Ninth Circuit

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Tort Claim against Alaska City for Actions of Tribal Police

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in M.J. v. United States:

CA9 Opinion

MJ Opening Brief

City of Quinhagak Answer Brief

MJ Reply Brief

The court’s syllabus:

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in this diversity action seeking to hold the Alaskan city of Quinhagak liable for injuries caused by the negligence of Derrick Johnson, a Native Village of Kwinhagak tribal police officer.

The panel noted that under Alaska state law, an employee’s immunity from tort liability precludes an employer from being held vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence. The panel held that Johnson was immune from individual liability for plaintiffs’ tort claims, both under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the tribe’s sovereign immunity. Accordingly, because plaintiffs sought to hold the City vicariously liable on a non-delegable duty theory for the negligent conduct of an immune independent contractor, plaintiffs’ claims against the City failed.

Tonasket v. Sargent Cert Opposition Brief:

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Tonasket v Sargent Cert Opp

The petition is here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Murder Conviction Arising at Navajo

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion.

SCT Denied Cert in Miller v. Wright — Challenge to Puyallup Tax Agreement

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied Miller v. Wright, a challenge to the Puyallup-Washington tax agreement. Order list here.

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Audio in Chehalis v. Thurston County

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here.

Briefs are here.

Opening Ninth Circuit Briefs in EXC v. Jensen — Navajo Court Jurisdiction over Nonmember

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Opening Brief

Navajo Nation Amicus Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

Lower court materials here.

Update Federal District Court Materials in Yakama/Washington Tax Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are updated materials in State of Washington v. Yakama Nation Tribal Court (E.D. Wash.):

DCT Denying Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Service

DCT Order Denying Motion to Compel Arbitration

Yakama Motion to Compel Arbitration

Yakama Motion to Dismiss for Ineffective Service

State Opposition to Yakama Motions

Yakama Reply on Arbitration

Yakama Reply on Ineffective Service Motion

Prior posts are here and here. The case is pending in the CA9 — materials here.

Tonasket v. Sargent Cert Petition — Challenge to Colville Tax Compact

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

Tonasket v Sargent Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Whether Indian tribal immunity from suit allows the Indian tribe, a price fixing competitor, to be immune from federal anti-trust laws?

2. Whether the officials of an Indian tribe that include the tribe’s tobacco tax administrator, acting in violation of federal law, can be protected by tribal immunity when prospective relief is sought?

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Dismisses Fred v. Washoe Tribe Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion.

Briefs:

Washoe Tribe Opening Brief

Fred Brief

From the opinion:

This is an interlocutory appeal asserting jurisdiction in this court under the collateral order doctrine. The underlying claims relate to the Washoe Tribe’s decision to take custody of the plaintiff’s grandchildren due to allegations of abuse by the grandchildren’s mother (the plaintiff’s daughter). After pursuing tribal  remedies, the grandmother, Ms. Fred, filed suit against the Tribe in federal district court. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim with leave to amend. The Tribe appeals the district court’s dismissal in its favor because the dismissal was without prejudice, arguing that the complaint should have been dismissed with prejudice for three reasons: 1) failure to exhaust tribal court remedies; 2) tribal sovereign immunity; and 3) lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Prior posts on this case here and here.

Ninth Circuit, on Reconsideration, Orders Interior Review of Gila Bend Act in Tohono O’odham Gaming Lands Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here are the materials in City of Glendale v. United States:

Superceding panel opinion

Arizona & Glendale En Banc Petition

Gila River En Banc Petition

Federal Response

TON Response

The court’s syllabus:

The panel withdrew its prior opinion and published a superseding opinion affirming in part, and reversing and remanding in part, the district court’s summary judgment in favor of federal defendants in an action by the City of Glendale seeking to set aside the United States Department of Interior’s decision to accept in trust, for the benefit of the Tohono O’odham Nation, a 54-acre parcel of land known as Parcel 2 on which the Nation hoped to build a resort and casino.

The panel held the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act, read as a whole, was unambiguous and that § 6(c) of the Act created a cap only on land held in trust for
the Nation, not on total land acquisition by the tribe under the Act. The panel held that § 6(d) of Act was ambiguous as to whether Parcel 2, located on a county island fully surrounded by city land, was within the City of Glendale’s corporate limits. The panel held further that the Secretary of the Interior was mistaken in concluding that the term has a plain meaning, and remanded for the agency to consider the question afresh in light of the ambiguity the panel saw. Finally, the panel held that passage of the Act was within congressional power under the Indian Commerce Clause and was not trumped by the Tenth Amendment

News coverage here.

Previous panel materials here.