As a result of the Rincon decision….
Here: DCT Order Granting Reconsideration.
Original protective order here.
Northern District of California
Elem Colony Casino Development Contract Voided; Arbitration Vacated
Here are the materials in Elem Indian Colony of Pomo Indians v. Pacific Development Partners X (N.D. Cal.):
DCT Order Denying Motion to Modify Arbitral Award
PDP Motion to Vacate or Modify Arbitral Award
Eleventh Amendment Does Not Bar Discovery in IGRA Bad Faith Action (In Cal. Only)
Here are the materials in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California (N.D. Cal.):
DCT Order on Motion for Protective Order
Cali Motion for Protective Order
Prior materials on this case (holding that Cal. has waived its 11th Amendment immunity under IGRA) are here.
Wilton Miwok Settlement Threatened by Possible Statute of Limitations Problem
The case is Wilton Miwok Rancheria v. Salazar, and involves an agreement to take land into trust for the tribe (both the Me-Wuks and the Miwoks) for gaming purposes. After the settlement was entered and approved by the court, intervenors (Sacramento County and City of Elk Grove) argued that the suit came too late under 28 U.S.C. 2401(a).
A few years back in John R. Sand and Gravel, the Supreme Court said that the statute of limitations under section 2402 (allowing claims against the US in the court of federal claims) was jurisdictional and could not be waived. Two circuits have held that section 2401 is also jurisdictional. Perhaps the Quiet Title Act also is jurisdictional (section 2409).
In this case, the court followed Ninth Circuit precedent decided before John R. and held that section 2401 is not jurisdictional, but specially allowed for an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit for review, and stayed the judgment.
Here are the materials:
Blue Lake Rancheria Loses FUTA Tax Challenge
Here are the materials in Blue Lake Rancheria v. United States (N.D. Cal.):
Blue Lake Motion for Summary Judgment
New Jersey Cherokee Man’s Attempt to Transfer Divorce to Tribal Court Fails
Here is the opinion — NJ Sand Hill Band v. California
An excerpt:
Claiming to be a Cherokee Indian, pro se plaintiff Ronald-Stacey seeks an order transferring his divorce proceeding to tribal court from state court. Although Ronald-Stacey filed this action on behalf of himself and his tribe, Civil Local Rule 3-9(b) prevents a pro se party from appearing on behalf of an entity. This order uses “plaintiff” in the singular, in reference to Ronald-Stacey alone.
Three separate motions to dismiss have been filed in this action: one by the attorney general of California on behalf of both the State of California and the Superior Court of California for the County of Contra Costa; one by David Timko on behalf of himself and Lynda Ann Holloway, a.k.a Lynda Ann Andrews; and one by county counsel for Contra Costa on behalf of the county. Because this Court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, defendants’ motions are GRANTED.
Oil Companies’ Motion to Dismiss Kivalina Climate Change Granted
Here — Kivalina Order
Materials are here.
Federal Court Holds that California Waived Eleventh Amendment Immunity from IGRA Good Faith Suits
Here is the opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California — DCT Order Denying Cal Motion to Dismiss
The materials:
California Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
Big Lagoon Rancheria Opposition Brief
An excerpt:
District Court Dismisses Challenge to Graton Rancheria Casino
Indianz’ report is here. Here are the materials in Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. Salazar (N.D. Cal.):
Third Update in Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxon
The hearing on the motion to dismiss is tentatively set for May 19, 2009, at 1 PM, according to this filing: oil-companies-re-notice-of-motion-to-dismiss
The complaint and the relevant motions are here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.