Federal Court Enjoins Pinoleville Pomo Nation Tribal Court Designed to Challenge Federal Court RICO Judgment

Here is the order in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):

363 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Shortly after judgment was entered in this case, PPN constituted its Tribal Court for the first time; there is no evidence that it ever existed in any meaningful way until then. Days after the newly appointed judge issued standing orders, PPN filed a civil complaint in that Tribal Court that seeks to (1) declare the judgment issued in this case invalid, (2) limit and control—indeed, vitiate—the scope of enforcement of that judgment, and (3) impose roughly eleven million dollars in liability on JW Gaming for alleged fraud stemming from the same loan agreement here. The lawsuit names not only JW Gaming but its attorneys in this matter and the bank at which PPN maintains accounts that was recently subpoenaed in the course of enforcement of the judgment. It is the first (and, as far as the record shows, only) case brought in the Tribal Court. Remarkably, up until the eve of the hearing on a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against the proceeding, which I ultimately denied, JW Gaming could not find publicly available information about how appear in that proceeding (despite being served with a summons), who the judge was, or what the rules were.

JW Gaming moved for an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue, which I denied. It then moved for the TRO, which I converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction once PPN’s counsel committed to placing the Tribal Court proceeding on hold. That motion is now ripe for decision.

It is critical that federal courts respect tribal sovereignty and tribal court jurisdiction. Tribes are sovereign nations. Their ability to govern themselves and enjoy the full benefits of sovereignty is unquestioned. Tribal courts, as arms of the tribe, are entitled to substantial comity and deference under established federal law. I previously denied JW Gaming’s motion for an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue out of these concerns. I remain vigilant about the compelling interest that PPN has in maintaining its sovereignty.

Those concerns, however, do not prevent an injunction against a Tribal Court proceeding that seeks to invalidate or interfere with the judgment entered in this Court. There are compelling interests in ensuring that enforcement of valid federal-court judgments is not interfered with, that JW Gaming is not required to litigate a lawsuit precision-engineered to invalidate and interfere with this one, and that third parties are not exposed to court orders or liability for simply enforcing a judgment or attempting to comply with the procedures for enforcing it. To the extent the lawsuit seeks to invalidate the judgment or interfere with enforcement, it is unquestionably meritless: a tribal court lacks authority to invalidate a federal court’s judgments or to dictate the scope of executing that those judgments. JW Gaming has shown it is entitled to a preliminary injunction to the extent that the Tribal Court proceedings attempts to invalidate, interfere with, or thwart the judgment entered here. I possess jurisdiction to enter this injunction to protect and effectuate the judgment. The doctrine of tribal court exhaustion does not apply because PPN exercised its sovereign power to clearly, expressly, and unequivocally waive it.

Briefs and related materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses RICO Action Brought by Sage Memorial Hospital [Navajo] against Management Services Contractor

Here are the materials in Navajo Health Foundation – Sage Memorial Hospital Inc. v. Razaghi Development Company LLC (D. Nev.):

1 Complaint

46 Motion to Dismiss

47 Motion to Strike

61 Response to 47

62 Response to 46

79 Reply in Support of 47

80 Reply in Support of 46

117 Magistrate Report

120 Sage Objections

121 Razaghi Objections

122 Response to 120

127 Response to 121

128 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Acres Bonusing Inc v. Marston

Here:

Opening Brief

Janssen Malloy Answer Brief

Jones Answer Brief

Marston Answer Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

United Parcel Service Inc. v. New York Cert Petition

Here:

UPS Cert Petition

Appendix

New York Brief in Opposition

Questions presented:

1. The Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act prohibits the knowing transportation of “a quantity” of more than 10,000 untaxed cigarettes in the “possession” of unauthorized persons. 18 U.S.C. § 2341(2). The first question presented is whether multiple shipments from different shippers may be aggregated to satisfy the 10,000-cigarette threshold.
2. The Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act of 2009 exempts UPS by name if its tobacco-delivery agreement with New York is “honored” nationwide. 15 U.S.C. § 376a(e)(3)(B)(ii)(I). The second question presented is whether substantial compliance is a prerequisite to this statutory exemption.

Second Circuit materials here:

CA2 Opinion

UPS Brief

New York Opening Brief

UPS Reply

New York Reply

DCT materials here.

Fourth Circuit Briefs in Case Involving Tribal Sovereign Lending of Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake

Here are the briefs in Hengle v. Treppa:

Appellant Brief

Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Consumer Financial Services Regulatory Commission Amicus Brief

NAFOA Amicus Brief

New Mexico Amicus Brief

Hengle Brief

Treppa Reply

Hengle Reply

Oral argument audio.

Lower court materials here.

St. Regis Mohawk Tribe, Pala Band, Fond du Lac & Oglala Sue Juul for Targeting Tribal Youth

Here is the complaint in St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Juul Labs, Inc. (N.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

Here is the complaint in Pala Band of Mission Indians v. Juul Labs, Inc. (N.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

Here is the complaint in Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Juul Labs, Inc. (N.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

Here is the complaint in Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa v. Juul Labs, Inc. (N.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

Spring Pandemic Update in Williams & Cochrane v. Quechan & Rosette Litigation [updated]

Here are new materials in in Williams & Cochrane LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation (S.D. Cal.):

235-1 W&C Amended Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

248 Quechan Response to W&C Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

254-1 Rosette Motion for Sanctions

258 W&C Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

267 W&C Response to Motion for Sanctions

268 Rosette Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions

285 DCT Order

Update (6/24/20):

292-1 W&C Motion for Reconsideration

311 Quechan Response to 292

313 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

Case tag here.

Federal Court Dismisses Malicious Prosecution Suit against Blue Lake and Outside Counsel by Former Business Partner

Here are the materials in Acres Bonusing Inc v. Marston (N.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

1-2 Tribal Court Opinion

29-1 Boutin Jones Defendants MTD

30-1 Boutin Jones Anti-SLAPP Motion

31 Janssen Malloy Defendants Anti-SLAPP Motion

32-1 Marston Defendants MTD

33 Janssen Malloy Defendants MTD

38 ABI Motion for Sanctions

40 JM Defendants Response to 38

43 ABI Response to BJ MTD

44 ABI Response to JM MTD

45 ABI Response to Marston MTD

46 ABI Reply in Support of Motion for Sanctions

47 JM Reply

48 BJ Reply

49 Marston Reply

50 ABI Response

50-1 Marston Anti-SLAPP Motion

52 Marston Response to ABI Motion to Strike

56 ABI Response to BJ Anti-SLAPP Motion

57 ABI Response to JM Anti-SLAPP Motion

58 ABI Response to Marston Anti-SLAPP Motion

59 JM Reply in Support of Anti-SLAPP Motion

60 BJ Reply in Support of Anti-SLAPP Motion

62 Marston Reply in Support of Anti-SLAPP Motion

65 DCT Order

Related cases here.

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