Sixth Circuit – Page 9

Sixth Circuit Reverses in Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe

December 18, 2013December 18, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here is the opinion:

An excerpt:

Because the State is not suing to enjoin a class III gaming activity, but instead a trust submission under MILCSA, § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) of IGRA does not abrogate the Tribe’s sovereign immunity, and the district court lacked jurisdiction. The issue of whether class III gaming on the casino property will violate IGRA if the Tribe’s MILCSA trust submission is successful is not ripe for adjudication because it depends on contingent future events that may never occur. The injunction was therefore not properly entered.

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials here.

Sixth Circuit Amicus Briefs in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. NLRB

December 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Chickasaw Nation Amicus Brief

NCAI Amicus Brief

American Indian Law Scholars Amicus Brief

Ute Mountain Ute Amicus Curiae Brief

SCIT’s opening brief is here.

Opening Briefs in Chickasaw and Saginaw Chippewa Challenges to NLRB Jurisdiction

December 12, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the brief in Chickasaw Nation v. NLRB (10th Cir.):

Chickasaw Brief and Addendum FILED

And here is the brief in Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe v. NLRB (6th Cir.):

Saginaw – NLRB – Brief filed on 12-6-13

Sixth Circuit Rejects Challenge to Eagle Mine

October 30, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Huron Mountain Club v. United States Army Corps of Engineers:

CA6 Unpublished Opinion

Huron Mountain Brief

Federal Brief

Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company Brief

Huron Mountain Reply

An excerpt:

Plaintiff-Appellant Huron Mountain Club (“HMC”) appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for injunctive relief, which sought to enjoin Kennecott Eagle Minerals Company (“Kennecott”) from constructing and operating the Eagle Mine (“Eagle Mine” or “the Mine”), a nickel and copper mine in Marquette, Michigan, and compel the United States Army Corps of Engineers1 (the “Corps”) to “administer” the federal permitting programs under the Rivers and Harbors Act (“RHA”), 33 U.S.C. § 403, and the Clean Water Act
(“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1344. We AFFIRM.

Lower court materials here.

Sixth Circuit Oral Argument Audio in LRB v. NLRB

October 9, 2013October 9, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here.

IPR on LRB v. NLRB

October 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Oral argument was today. We’ll post the oral argument audio when it becomes available.

Sixth Circuit Denies NLRB’s Motion for Stay in Little River Band v. NLRB

October 3, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials:

motion to extend oral argument

LRB Response to Motion for Stay – Filed

order denying motion to stay

Oral argument is Tuesday morning at 9AM in Cincinnati at Potter Stewart’s place.

Little River Band Ottawa Reply Brief in LRB v. NLRB

August 30, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

2013-08-20 Reply Brief (As Filed)

Sixth Circuit Issues Opinion in In re Greektown Holdings Bankruptcy Adversary Proceeding

August 26, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is the opinion in In re Greektown Holdings LLC (Papas v. Buchwald Capital Advisors, LLC):

Papas – Gatzaros Brief

Buckwald Capital Advisors Brief

Sault Tribe Brief

Papas – Gatzaros Reply Brief

An excerpt:

At issue in this appeal is a claims bar order entered in an adversary proceeding connected with the bankruptcy of Greektown Holdings, LLC. The appellants, the Papases and Gatzaroses, and two of the appellees, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority, are defendants in a fraudulent transfer action that was brought in federal bankruptcy court by Buchwald Capital Advisors, LLC. Buchwald Capital Advisors is the trustee of the Greektown Litigation Trust and an appellee in this appeal. The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe and the Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority agreed to settle with Buchwald Capital Advisors. However, they conditioned the settlement upon the entry of an order that would bar any claims against them “arising out of or reasonably flowing from” either the fraudulent transfer proceeding or the allegedly fraudulent transfers themselves. The Papases and Gatzaroses objected to this requested order, but when they could not come up with any viable claims that would be enjoined by the bar order, the district court approved the settlement and entered the bar order. A short time later, the Papases and Gatzaroses filed a motion for reconsideration in which they detailed additional claims that they feared might be barred by the order. The district court denied their motion.

On appeal, the Papases and Gatzaroses argue that the bar order was improper and also contend that the district court abused its discretion when it denied their motion for reconsideration. The district court was clearly acting within its discretion when it denied the motion for reconsideration, so we affirm its order denying reconsideration. But the bar order itself raises several interesting questions of first impression in this Circuit. These questions concern the district court’s jurisdiction and power to enter the bar order and the proper scope of such an order. Unfortunately, these issues have not been adequately briefed and argued by the parties and were not addressed below. We therefore remand this case to the district court and instruct the district court to reevaluate the bar order under the guidance provided in this opinion.