Colorado ex rel. Suthers v. Cash Advance — Rent a Tribe Case

We have written about this case before — the question of whether Cash Advance and others who are part-owned by Indian tribes can avoid suit from the Colorado AG for unfair consumer practices (yecch).

The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision not to quash the subpoena directed against the tribe-owned Cash Advance defendant in this opinion — cash-advance-colorado-coa-opinion

The appellate briefs are here, and an additional amicus brief is here — amicus-brief-supporting-cash-advance (strangely, the brief doesn’t actually say who the amicus is…).

Cash Advance Rent-A-Tribes?

The Denver City and County Court thought so. In a case where the Colorado AG asked a Colorado trial court to issue subpoenas to internet money lenders owned by the Miami Nation of Oklahoma and the Santee Sioux Tribe of Nebraska. The tribal enterprises appeared for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction, raising tribal sovereign immunity as a bar to the subpoenas. The trial court denied the order. The case is now pending before the Colorado Court of Appeals.

If the characterization of this case on page 13 of this prepared statement before the House Subcommittee on Domestic Policy of the Committee on Oversight and Domestic Reform is even half accurate (the whole “rent-a-tribe” thing), then this is an ugly case. It is an ugly case regardless.

The Colorado Court of Appeals briefs are here:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply Brief