RICO

Update in Williams & Cochrane LLP v. Quechan Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

39 First Amended Complaint

71-1 Motion to File Supplemental Complaint

91 Response to 71

93 Reply in Support of 71

94 Quechan Answer

95-1 Motion to Strike 94

97 DCT Order Denying 71

ADDITIONAL UPDATE (8/27/18):

98 Quechan Opposition to Motion to Strike

100 Second Amended Complaint

105-1 Motion to File Third Amended Complaint

105-2 Proposed Third Amended Complaint

109-1 Rosette Motion to Strike

110-1 Rosette Motion to Dismiss

115-1 Quechan Motion to Dismiss

120 Quechan Opposition to 105

121 Rosette Opposition to 105

124 Reply in Support of 105

135 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Federal Court Dismisses Most Claims in Battle of Law Firms over Quechan Legal Work

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

50-1 motion to dismiss

51-1 motion to disqualify

53-1 rosette motion to dismiss

73 williams response to 50

74 williams response to 53

75 williams response to 51

82 reply in support of 50

83 reply in support of 51

85 reply in support of 53

89 dct order

Update in Nooksack RICO Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Rabang v. Kelly (W.D. Wash.):

03-20-18 Letter From Bob Kelly and Notice of Involuntary Disenrollement

144 3-15-18 Kelly Defendants’ Motion for Indicative Ruling Regarding Dismissal

146 3-15-18 Defendant Chief Judge Ray Dodge’s Notice of Joinder of Kelly Defendants’ Motion for Indicative Ruling

147 3-26-18 Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Indicative Ruling Regarding Dismissal

UPDATE (4/11/18) — motion denied

4-11-18 Order Denying Defendants’ Rule 62.1 Motion For Indicative Ruling Regarding Dismissal

Ninth Circuit Oral Argument Video in Rabang v. Kelly [Nooksack]

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Briefs here.

Federal Court Stays Nooksack RICO Case Pending DOI Election Investigation

Sarah M Donnelly

Here is the order in the matter of Rabang et al v. Kelly et al, 17-cv-00088 (W.D. Wash.):

Doc. 140 – Order

At plaintiff’s request, the court has extended a stay of the proceedings until April 30, 2018. It is awaiting the BIA’s final determination regarding the validity of the Nooksack’s 2017 general election.

Nooksack Update in Federal RICO Action

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are new materials in Rabang v. Kelly (W.D. Wash.):

122 Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Summary Judgment Response

Ninth Circuit briefs in Rabang v. Kelly are here.

Briefs For Opposing Motions to Compel and Quash in Nooksack RICO Case

Sarah M Donnelly

Here are the documents in the matter of Rabang v. Kelly, 17-cv-00088 (W.D. Wash.):

Link: Previous posts

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Rabang v. Kelly (Nooksack RICO Matter)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

6 – Defendant-Appellants’ Opening Brief

11 – Plaintiff-Appellees’ Answering Brief

16 Appellants’ Reply Brief

More posts here.

 

Federal Court Allows Discovery of Nooksack Tribal Court Judge

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials from Rabang v. Kelly (W.D. Wash.):

75 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Deny or Continue Defendant Dodge’s Motion for Summary Judgment

82 Defendant Chief Judge Raymond Dodge’s Opposition to Rule 56(D) Motion

84 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion to Deny or Continue Dodge’s Motion for Summary Judgment

85 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Continue

Nooksack Disenrollees’ RICO Action against Nooksack Holdover Council (in their individual capacities) to Proceed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Rabang v. Kelly (W.D. Wash.):

ORDER

MOTION OF DEFENDANTS KELLY, GEORGE, SMITH, SOLOMON, JOHNSON, CANETE, GEORGE, ROMERO, EDWARDS, AND ARMSTRONG TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO F. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(1) AND F. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(6)

RESPONSE TO MOTION OF DEFENDANTS KELLY, GEORGE, SMITH, SOLOMON, JOHNSON, CANETE, GEORGE, ROMERO, EDWARDS, AND ARMSTRONG TO DISMISS PURSUANT TO F. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(1) AND F. R. CIV. P. 12

DEFENDANTS_ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF KELLY DEFENDANTS_ RULE 12(B)(1) AND 12(B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS

PLAINTIFFS_ NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY