Quechan Tribe and Rosette Firm Largely Prevail against Williams & Cochrane Firm

First, we want to express our deepest sympathy to the family and colleagues of Rob Rosette, who recently walked on far too young. Rob’s impact on Indian country and the practice of Indian law cannot be understated. He was a true giant in the field. Over the years, Rob and his firm hired many of our alums from Michigan State’s Indigenous Law and Policy Center, and for that we are grateful. He will be missed.

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

322-1 Rosette MSJ

328-1 W&C MSJ against Rosette

329-1 Quechan MSJ

330-1 W&C MSJ against Quechan

343 Rosette Response to 328

347 Quechan Response to 330

348 W&C Response to 322

349 W&C Response to 329

350 Rosette Reply in Support of 322

352 W&C Reply in Support of 328

353 Quechan Reply in Support of 329

354 W&C Reply in Support of 330

375 DCT Order on Summary Judgment Motions

Prior post here.

SCOTUS Denies Cert in 1 Indian Law Case

Here is today’s order list.

The denied petition is Acres Bonusing Inc. v. Marston — cert stage briefs here:

Acres Bonusing Cert Petition

Opposition

Reply

Lower court materials here.

California Federal Court Dismisses Remaining Defendants in Acres Bonusing v. Marston

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

78-1 Boutin Jones Motion to Dismiss

79 Janssen Malloy Motion to Dismiss

80-1 Rapport Motion to Dismiss

82 Response

83 Boutin Jones Reply

84 Janssen Malloy Reply

85 Rapport Reply

Prior post here.

Massachusetts Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Suit against Tribal Lending Business Partner

Here are the materials in Duggan v. Martorello (D. Mass.):

Cert Petitions Filed on Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Internet Lending

Here is the petition in Treppa v. Hengle:

Appendix

Treppa Application for Stay

Hengle Opposition

Reply

Questions presented:

  1. Whether a court can invalidate an agreement to have an arbitrator resolve questions of arbitrability (a “delegation clause”) based on the court’s interpretation of a separate choice-of-law provision.
  2. Whether sovereign immunity bars private plaintiffs from suing tribal government officials, in their official
    capacities, for alleged violations of state law

Lower court materials here.

In the tule swamp–upper lake Pomo [LOC]

Here is the petition in a related case, Asner v. Hengle:

Question presented:

Can a federal court refuse to enforce the delegation clause of an arbitration agreement on the ground that a choice-of-law provision applicable to the arbitration agreement as a whole prospectively waives federal rights?

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