personal jurisdiction – Turtle Talk

Grant Christensen on Recent SCOTUS Decisions on Personal Jurisdiction and Tribal Courts

September 30, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Grant Christensen has posted “Personal Jurisdiction and Tribal Courts after Walden and Bauman: The Inadvertent Impact of Supreme Court Jurisdictional Decisions on Indian Country.”

Here is the abstract:

In 2014 the United States Supreme Court added two new cases to the canon on the meaning of due process in the context of personal jurisdiction. These cases clarified the metes and bounds of specific and general personal jurisdiction. However, decisions that fit within the state and federal court system do not always easily have cross applications to tribal courts – which nonetheless are obliged to extend due process rights via the Indian Civil Rights Act. This article takes the Supreme Court’s 2014 decisions and discusses their potential application to tribal courts and their use within Indian Country.

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion in Heldt v. Payday Financial

April 8, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the updated materials in Heldt v. Payday Financial LLC (D.S.D.):

36 Opposition to Motion to Compel Arbitration

46 Opposition to Motion to Stay

51 Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

56 Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss

58 DCT Order on Exhaustion

An excerpt:

ORDERED that Defendants, as the parties asserting that there is tribal court jurisdiction and that there ought to be tribal court exhaustion, must file within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order a declaratory judgment action in the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court naming the Plaintiffs herein to address to that court the issue of tribal court jurisdiction and if that court concludes it has jurisdiction, and the availability of an arbitration forum as specified in the loan agreements in this case. In such a tribal court action, Plaintiffs of course may contest tribal court jurisdiction and assert their arguments as the unavailability of an arbitration forum as specified in the agreements without waiving their assertion that there is no tribal court jurisdiction. It is finally

ORDERED that the parties keep this Court advised of proceedings in the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court by filing upon the conclusion of any tribal court proceedings and/or appeals, all pleadings filed by any party and all rulings by the tribal court as an attachment to an affidavit or stipulation.

Prior materials are here, here, and here.

Updated Materials in Heldt v. Payday Financial — Amended Complaint

October 10, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Additional materials here:

23 Motion for Stay and to Compel Arbitration

30 Amended Complaint

31 Opposition to Motion for Stay

33 Reply in Support of Motion for Stay

34 Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

Prior posts here and here.

Western Sky Motion to Dismiss Heldt Class Action in South Dakota

August 27, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is the motion in Heldt v. Payday Financial LLC (D. S.D.):

Western Sky Motion to Dismiss

Complaint here.

Navajo Nation SCT Decision Asserting Jurisdiction over Nonmember Helium Plant Repossession Action

June 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Neptune Leasing Inc. v. Mountain States Petroleum Corp. and Nacogdoches Oil and Gas Inc. The court’s syllabus:

The Supreme Court issues its opinion in this appeal of the Shiprock Court’s dismissal of a repossession action on the basis of a lack of personal jurisdiction over Mountain States. The Court reverses and remands for further proceedings. The action concerns the sale and re-sale of a helium plant and its assets located on a Navajo Nation business site leasehold performed without involvement or consent of the Navajo Nation and without even a written business site lease. Finding that the Shiprock Court erred in providing conclusory findings as to jurisdiction, the Court found jurisdiction after engaging in a full jurisdictional discussion involving inherent sovereignty, Navajo statutes, and federal common law tests. The parties had additionally challenged subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a private agreement between the purported buyer and seller which selected Texas as their litigation forum; however the Court stated that no private contractual clause may avoid Navajo Nation jurisdiction over transactions on Navajo Nation land involving assets in which the Navajo Nation may have an interest. Additionally, the Court repeated that there is no such things as an equitable business site lease.

New Mexico’s Sex Offender Law Not Applicable in Indian Country

June 10, 2009June 10, 2009Kate Fort

The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled that Indians living in Indian Country, not employed or in school outside of Indian Country who were convicted of sex offenses in a court other than a New Mexico court, are not required to register on the New Mexico sex offender list as required by New Mexico law.

The specific question presented then is whether the two statutes [42 U.S.C. § 14071 (1998), as amended by “Megan’s Law” ]can be deemed an express statement by Congress that state sex offender registration laws shall apply in Indian country. We hold that they cannot. The language of the statutes betrays no indication that Congress intended the term “resident” by itself to override historically recognized and accepted limits on the reach of state criminal and regulatory law in Indian country. The type of language specifically referring to Indians and Indian
tribes which would support a conclusion that Congress intended to override tribal sovereignty is simply missing.

New York Times coverage

Opinion