Here are the materials in Flandreau Sioux v. South Dakota, out of the District of South Dakota.
flandreau-v-south-dakota-dct-order
south-dakota-motion-to-dismiss
Here is the tribe’s claim:
Rule 19
California v. San Pasqual Cert Petition
This is the same kind of petition California filed a month ago in parallel cases involving Chachil Dehe Band and Rincon Band.
Cert Petition in California v. Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians
Ah, Rule 19! Here is California’s cert petition — california-petition-for-cert
Just so everyone knows, I called this YEARS ago! See my “The Comparative Rights of Indispensable Sovereigns.” 🙂
And here are the lower court materials (Rincon Band; Cachil Dehe; and San Pascqual). And here is our post on Pimentel.
Questions Presented (from the cert petition):
In 1999, the State of California and sixty-one federally recognized tribes entered into virtually identical tribal-state class III gaming compacts (Compacts) under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721 (IGRA). The Compacts allow those tribes to operate slot machines if they have been issued licenses for those devices from a prioritized and limited license pool established by the Compacts, or if they have obtained a compact amendment allowing them to operate slot machines without reference to that license pool. The questions presented are:
1. In applying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 (Rule 19), may a federal court, consistent with the rule of decision in Republic of the Philippines v. Pimentel, 128 S. Ct. 2180 (2008), utilize the authority it has under Rule 19(b) to safeguard (through the shaping of relief) the legally protected interest of an absent sovereign as a basis for finding that the absent sovereign is not a required party within the meaning of Rule 19(a)?
2. May the asserted ability of a court of appeals to resolve inconsistent district court decisions on the same claim for relief be relied upon to conclude that an absent person need not be joined under Rule 19(a)?
Tyson Foods Asserts Rights of Cherokee Nation as Defense to Environmental Suit
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)
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
You must be logged in to post a comment.