Materials in Modoc Nation Suit against Former Business Partner, Softek

Here are the materials (so far) in Modoc Nation v. Shah (N.D. Okla.):

29 Amended Complaint

75 Motion to Dismiss Complaint

77 Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims

82 Second Amended Counterclaims

93 Counterclaim Defendants MSJ

97 Response to 93

100 Response to 77

102 Tribe Response to 75

Federal Court Holds Interior May Not Take Land into Trust for Gaming Purposes for Keetoowah

Here is the opinion in Cherokee Nation v. Bernhardt (N.D. Okla.):

Prior post here.

Federal Prisoner’s Effort to Invoke Murphy v. Royal Decision Fails

Here are the materials in United States v. Springer (N.D. Okla.):

301 Motion for Relief

302 Motion to Order US Response

303 US Response

305 Reply

 

306 DCT Order

 

 

Federal Court Accepts Cherokee Nation’s Voluntary Dismissal of Tribal Court Opioid Case

Here are the materials in McKesson Corp. v. Hembree (N.D. Okla.):

139 Hembree Motion to Dismiss

141 Opposition

145 Reply

146 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Kalyn Free Sues Muscogee AG and Tribal Court over Jurisdiction

Here is the complaint in Free v. Dellinger (N.D. Okla.):

2 Complaint

UPDATE (5/14/2018):

3 Motion for Preliminary Injunction

9 Tribe Motion to Dismiss

14 Tribal Court Motion to Dismiss

15 Tribal Court Opposition

20 Free Response to 14

Federal Court Enjoins Cherokee Nation Tribal Court Suit against Opioid Companies

Here is the order in McKesson Corp. v. Hembree (N.D. Okla.):

138 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Oklahoma is among the states with the highest number of opioid prescriptions per one hundred people and has a high overdose death rate. Tribal communities have been tragically affected, as have other communities in Oklahoma. Numerous cities, counties and states throughout the country, including the state of Oklahoma, have filed lawsuits against various opioid manufactures, pharmaceutical distributors, and other businesses allegedly responsible for the proliferation of opioid drugs. This proceeding concerns a lawsuit by the Cherokee Nation against a number of opioid distributors and pharmacies. However, the question before the Court is not the merits of the Cherokee Nation’s lawsuit but rather the boundaries of tribal court jurisdiction. The Attorney General of the Cherokee Nation has filed suit not in state court but in the tribal district court of the Cherokee Nation. Do the tribal courts of the Cherokee Nation have jurisdiction over this particular action? The Court finds they do not.

Briefs here.

Federal Court Dismisses Pawnee Effort to Challenge Oil and Gas Leases

Here are the materials in Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma v. Zinke (N.D. Okla.):

19 Motion to Dismiss

20 Opposition

21 Reply

27 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Kialegee Tribal Town v. Dillinger for Lack of Federal Question

Here are the materials in Kialegee Tribal Town v. Dellinger (N.D. Okla.):

2 Complaint

4 Motion for PI

8 DCT Order

an excerpt:

The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case because plaintiffs have not shown in their complaint that the Court would be required to resolve a substantial and disputed question of federal law. Plaintiffs’ complaint identifies an issue of federal law concerning the enforcement of IGRA by an Indian tribe, but plaintiffs have not adequately alleged facts supporting even an inference that the MCN was seeking to enforce IGRA. Dellinger’s letter strongly supports the conclusion that the MCN was seeking to enforce its own laws when it took possession of the Bruner allotment. The law is clearly established that federal courts lack the authority to resolve disputes over tribal law, and such disputes fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of tribal courts. Attorney’s Process & Investigation Servs., Inc. v. Sac & Fox Tribe of Mississippi in Iowa, 609 F.3d 927, 943 (8th Cir. 2010); Wheeler v. United States Dep’t of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 811 F.2d 549, 551-52 (10th Cir. 1987). The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear matters solely concerning the interpretation of tribal law, and plaintiffs must litigate their case in tribal court to the extent that plaintiffs’ contest the enforcement of tribal gaming laws. As the parties seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of this court, plaintiffs bear the burden to establish that “federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of State of California, 463 U.S. at 27-28. Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden, and this case should be dismissed.