Here:
Payday Financial Supplemental Brief
Federal Trade Commission Amicus Brief
Gavin Clarkson Amicus Brief [CA7 Order Denying Clarkson Motion: out of time]
Payday Financial Brief in Response to Amici TK
Prior briefs here, with supplemental briefing order.
Here are the opening briefs in Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin v. Village of Hobart (7th Cir.):
Hobart Reply TK
Lower court materials here.
Here is the order, which appears to be in response to letters from counsel for both parties on this case (materials here and here):
Jackson v. Payday Finanical (7th Cir Order)
Jackson Letter Payday Financial Response
The appeal remains pending until the district court answers the questions posed by the panel. Briefs and lower court materials remain here.
Here is the opinion:
An excerpt:
Dori McGeshick, a tribal employee, helped administer a federal grant to build 11 new homes on a Native American reservation. Tasked with acquiring appliances for the new homes, McGeshick took the opportunity to improve her lifestyle, using federal funds to buy $13,000 worth of high‐end appliances for her own home. After a bench trial, the district court convicted her of the offense of theft by an employee of an Indian tribal government, see 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A), and sentenced her to 15 months’ imprisonment. On appeal McGeshick argues that the district court clearly erred when it found that she had abused a position of trust. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. Because she was entrusted with considerable discretion and responsibility, we affirm.
Here is the opening brief in Jackson v. Payday Financial LLC:
Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Pecore. An excerpt:
After a six-year investigation, an additional two-and-one-half years of discovery and pretrial posturing, and a nine-day jury trial, Marshall Pecore and Conrad Waniger (the “defendants”) prevailed against civil charges that they violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”). Unsatisfied with just the trial victory and perhaps disturbed that the government spent nearly a decade chasing about $75,000, the defendants moved for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(A), or alternatively, sanctions under Rule 37(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court denied both motions. Despite our discomfort with what looks like government overreaching, we find that the district court’s ruling was not an abuse of discretion and accordingly, we affirm.
Here are the briefs:
Oral argument is here.
Here is today’s opinion. An excerpt:
We conclude that the Indenture constitutes a management contract under IGRA and that, as a condition of its validity, it should have been submitted to the Chairman of the NIGC for approval prior to its implementation. The parties’ failure to secure such approval renders the Indenture void in its entirety and thus invalidate s the Corporation’s waiver of sovereign immunity. The district court therefore correctly determined that it was without jurisdiction with respect to Wells Fargo’s motion for the appointment of a receiver.
We further conclude that the district court should have permitted Wells Fargo leave to file an amended complaint to the extent that it presented claims for legal and equitable relief in connection with the bond transaction on its own behalf and on behalf of the bondholder. Upon the filing of such a complaint, the district court should address the issue of whether, now that the Indenture has been determined to be void, Wells Fargo has standing to litigate claims on behalf of the bondholder. The court also must determine whether the collateral documents, when read separately or together, waive the sovereign immunity of the Corporation with respect to any such claims. If such a waiver is found, the court may proceed to determine the merits of those claims.
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
We conclude that the court’s decision to deny preliminary relief was not an abuse of discretion. Our analysis, however, differs in significant respects from that of the district court, which was persuaded that the plaintiffs had shown only a minimal chance of succeeding on their claims. We are less sanguine about the prospects of keeping the carp at bay. In our view, the plaintiffs presented enough evidence at this preliminary stage of the case to establish a good or perhaps even a substantial likelihood of harm – that is, a non-trivial chance that the carp will invade Lake Michigan in numbers great enough to constitute a public nuisance. If the invasion comes to pass, there is little doubt that the harm to the plaintiff states would be irreparable. That does not mean, however, that they are automatically entitled to injunctive relief. The defendants, in collaboration with a great number of agencies and experts from the state and federal governments, have mounted a full-scale effort to stop the carp from reaching the Great Lakes, and this group has promised that additional steps will be taken in the near future. This effort diminishes any role that equitable relief would otherwise play. Although this case does not involve the same kind of formal legal regime that caused the Supreme Court to find displacement of the courts’ commonlaw powers in American Electric Power, on the present state of the record we have something close to it. In light of the active regulatory efforts that are ongoing, we conclude that an interim injunction would only get in the way. We stress, however, that if the agencies slip into somnolence or if the record reveals new information at the permanent injunction stage, this conclusion can be revisited.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.