Here’s an interesting Rule 19 motion — the State of Oklahoma has sued Tyson Foods and other poultry producers over the pollution of the Illinois River (news article here). The defendants now claim that the Cherokee Nation owns the riverbed and are therefore indispensable parties to the suit, mandating the dismissal of the suit if the Nation refuses to be joined as a party. (H/T Todd)
Rule 19
San Pasqual v. California Decision
Snoqualmie Tribal Leadership Dispute in Federal Court
Here is the news article. An excerpt:
A federal judge might be the last hope for banished members of the Snoqualmie Tribe who appeared in court Tuesday in their effort to regain tribal membership.
U.S. District Court Judge James L. Robart said he would issue a written ruling later as to whether the case is even properly before him or should be dismissed.
Only then — if he rules in favor of the banished members — would he get to the merits of the case.
And here are the materials:
petition-for-writ-of-habeas-corpus
snoqualmie-rule-19-motion-to-dismiss [!!!]
Cachil Dehe Band v. California — Ninth Circuit Affirms Rule 19 Dismissal of Claim against State
Rule 19 (my favorite FRCP) strikes again!
Here is the opinion in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians v. State of California: cachil-dehe-band-v-california-ca9-opinion
And the briefs:
PPI v. Kempthorne – Denial of Injunction against Seminole Hard Rock Bingo
Here is the order re: PPI’s request for an injunction in light of the Florida House v. Crist ruling. It was denied — once again, my favorite rule — Rule 19 — came into play. [Thanks to T.W.]
PPI’s complaint and request for an injunction is here.
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel — Rule 19 and Sovereign Immunity
The Supreme Court released its opinion in Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, just a few minutes ago. The case involved a claim under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and FRCP 19 that a human rights claim involving the Philippines should be dismissed for failure to join an indispensable party (a sovereign entity with sovereign immunity). The briefings featured several Indian law cases decided by the lower courts.
The Supreme Court’s opinion highlighted one of these opinions, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes v. Hodel, 788 F.2d 765 (D.C. Cir. 1986). This is one of the strongest pro-tribal sovereign opinions on this question ever decided. Good deal, despite the bad outcome for human rights claimants in general.
Frank’s Landing Tobacco Sales Lawsuit Materials
Indianz coverage is here. Here are the materials. Once again, let it be known that Rule 19 is my favorite(!):
nisqually-v-gregoire-complaint
nisqually-motion-for-preliminary-injunction
squaxin-island-motion-to-dismiss
franks-landing-motion-to-dismiss
California Compact Dispute Argued before the Ninth Circuit
Here are the briefs in San Pasqual Band v. Schwarzenegger:
california-tribal-business-assn-amicus
And here is news coverage from Indianz:
EEOC v. Peabody Coal & Navajo Nation — CA9 Materials
This long-running case involves the Navajo tribal preference statute. The district court dismissed the claim under Rule 19 (one of my faves!). Here are the Ninth Circuit materials:
Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel — Indian Law Issues?
Well, not really, but this case, which the Supreme Court granted cert. on Dec. 3, involves the application of the necessary and indispensable party doctrine of Rule 19 to sovereigns (especially sovereigns raising sovereign immunity). Interestingly, a large portion (even perhaps a majority) of the cases cited in the cert. petitions and opps involve the application of Rule 19 to tribal sovereigns.
From SCOTUSBlog:
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.