Here:
Oklahoma Supplemental Brief re Bay Mills
Tribal Supplemental Brief re Bay Mills
The Tenth Circuit previously abated this matter pending the outcome in Michigan v. Bay Mills.
Here:
Oklahoma Supplemental Brief re Bay Mills
Tribal Supplemental Brief re Bay Mills
The Tenth Circuit previously abated this matter pending the outcome in Michigan v. Bay Mills.
Here are the materials in Dillon v. BMO Harris Band NA (M.D. N.C.):
34 BMO Harris Motion to Transfer
36 BMO Harris Motion to Compel Arbitration
39 BMO Harris Motion to Dismiss
68 Dillon Response to Motion to Sever
69 Dillon Response to Motion to Transfer
70 Dillon Response to Motion to Compel Arbitration
71 Dillon Response to Motion to Dismss
Here:
UPDATE: oral argument audio here.
Lower court materials:
59-1 Buena Vista Rancheria Motion to Intervene
65 DCT Order Denying Motion to Intervene
Materials in related cases:
Here:
opening brief of plaintiffs-appellants
addendum to brief of plaintiffs-appellants
The MSU ILPC filed an amicus brief in this matter as well:
Lower court order here:
108 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss
Here are the opening lines of the appellants’ brief:
Appellees engineered and executed a scheme to swindle hundreds of millions of dollars in oil-and-gas lease revenue from Appellants Ramona Two Shields and Mary Louise Defender Wilson and the class of Native Americans they propose to represent. Yet the District Court concluded that Appellants could not, as a matter of law, pursue their North Dakota common-law claims against Appellees simply because Appellees involved the United States in their swindle. Based on that fact alone, the District Court found that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 required dismissal of Appellants’ entire case.
There is a parallel suit against the United States in the CFC.
Here is the unpublished opinion. An excerpt:
The district court concluded next that joinder would not be feasible because the Tribe enjoys sovereign immunity as a federally recognized Indian tribe. Appellants challenge the validity of the Tribe’s federally recognized status but concede its existence. Indeed, the Tribe has been federally recognized since at least 1985, see Indian Tribal Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services, 50 Fed. Reg. 6055-02 (Feb. 13, 1985), and it thus has “the immunities and privileges available to other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship with the United States,” Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the Board of Indian Affairs, 77 Fed. Reg. 47,868-01 (Aug. 10, 2012).
Briefs and link to oral argument audio here.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark (W.D. Wash.):
59 State Defendants Motion to Dismiss
60 Prosecuting Attys Motion to Dismiss
67 Tribal Amici Motion to Dismiss
116 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
An excerpt:
Being fully advised, the court GRANTS both motions on grounds that Skokomish Indian Tribe failed to join certain other Indian tribes in this action. These other tribes are required parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, but cannot be joined due to their sovereign immunity. Because the court concludes that the action cannot proceed “in equity and good conscience” without these other tribes, see id., the court dismisses Skokomish Indian Tribe’s action without prejudice. With respect to Defendants Goldmark and Young only, the court also grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss on grounds of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and because Skokomish Indian Tribe has failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Nevertheless, despite granting Defendants’ motions, the court also grants Skokomish Indian Tribe leave to amend its Amended Complaint.
We posted the complaint here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.