Southern District of Florida – Page 5

Here, Plaintiff asserts that he has uncovered two new pieces of evidence that indicate that Mr. Chasing Hawk is biased toward CashCall. First, Plaintiff claims that Mr. Chasing Hawk’s daughter, Shannon Chasing Hawk, is employed by Western Sky. Plaintiff has attached what he claims is a printout of Ms. Chasing Hawk’s Facebook profile page, listing “Western Sky Financial” as her employer. See DE 61 at 9. He further alleges that Mr. Chasing Hawk has “10+ kids and every single one of them has either worked for, currently works at CashCall or one of its subsidiaries . . . or had illegally attempted to conduct an unsuccessful arbitration for the defendant.” DE 67 at 2 n.1. Second, Plaintiff alleges that CashCall and Mr. Chasing Hawk have colluded in the initiation of arbitration proceedings. Plaintiff attaches what he claims is an email chain between Mr. Chasing Hawk and an employee of Lakota Cash, LLC (“Lakota Cash”), a subsidiary of Western Sky, which purportedly shows that Lakota Cash prepared the letter for Mr. Chasing Hawk. See id. at 7-8. Plaintiff further claims that he called Mr. Chasing Hawk, and that Mr. Chasing Hawk admitted during the phone call that CashCall had prepared the letter for him. Plaintiff represents that he has tried calling Mr. Chasing Hawk again, but that he told Plaintiff that “I am not able to talk to you because cash call (sic) will get mad. You have to call the attorney, sorry.” Id. at 3.

Prior order here.

Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Seminole Tribe v. State of Florida Tax Dispute

June 3, 2013May 31, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Seminole Tribe Opening Brief

Florida Appellee Brief

Reply Brief TK

Lower court materials here.

Dispute with Western Sky Financial Heads to Arbitration with CRST Elder Robert Chasing Hawk

May 20, 2013May 19, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the updated materials in Inetianbor v. Cashcall (S.D. Fla.):

DCT Order Compelling Arbitration

Renewed Motion to Compel

Inetianbor Opposition

57-main [Cashcall Reply]

57-1 [Affidavit of Robert Chasing Hawk]

57-3

57-4 [Consumer loan agreement]

Previous posts on this case are here and here.

Federal Court Grants Morgan Stanley Motion to Compel Arbitration in Cypress RICO Suit

May 20, 2013May 19, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the materials in Miccosukee Tribe v. Cypress (S.D. Fla.):

DCT Order Granting Morgan Stanley Motion

Morgan Stanley Motion to Dismiss

Miccosukee Opposition to Morgan Stanley Motion

Morgan Stanley Reply

Interesting question, whether the arbitration agreement signed by the former tribal chairman who now faces RICO charges from the tribe is valid or void ab initio. From the opinion:

Plaintiff, in opposition to being compelled to arbitrate its claims against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, contends that Defendant Cypress, as the main co-conspirator in embezzling and misappropriating millions of dollars of the Miccosukee Tribe’s funds for his personal gain, was without authority to bind the Miccosukee Tribe, absent the knowledge and consent of the Miccosukee Tribe’s General Counsel, to arbitration, which effectively closes the federal courthouse doors to its claims against Morgan Stanley Smith Barney.

But the court rejected the argument:

If there is an absence of actual authority, Defendant Cypress certainly had apparently [sic] authority.

Eleventh Circuit Rules against Miccosukee Tribe in Dispute over Everglades Flood Control

May 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion in Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States. An excerpt:

Since 1995, the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (“Tribe” or “Miccosukee tribe”) has had a running battle with the federal government over the government’s management of the Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control (“C&SF Project”) in the Everglades. This case is the most recent chapter. The gist of the four-count complaint the Tribe filed in this case is that the project diverts excessive flood waters over tribal lands—in part to protect other land owners whose properties are located within the project. The District Court dismissed three of the complaint’s counts for failure to state a claim for relief and the fourth on summary judgment. The Tribe appeals these decisions. We affirm.

Here are the briefs:

Miccosukee Initial Brief

Appellee Brief

Miccosukee Reply

US Supplemental Letter Oct 2011

US Supplemental Letter Sept 2012

Update in Inetianbor v. Cashcall (Western Sky Financial): Federal Court Reopens Case

April 2, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

You may recall from our February post that a federal court had honored an arbitration provision in a Cashcall/Western Sky Financial form agreement and sent the case to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court. That court responded to the plaintiff that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe does not authorize arbitration under the American Arbitration Association rules, so the plaintiff successfully brought the case back to federal court.

Materials in Inetianbor v. Cashcall Inc. (S.D. Fla.) are here:

DCT Order Granting Motion to Reopen

Inetianbor Motion to Reopen + Tribal Court Letter

Cashcall Opposition

Federal Court Order Compliance with Western Sky Financial Tribal Arbitration Provision

February 18, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Inetianbor v. Cashcall Inc. (S.D. Fla.):

DCT Order Granting Motion to Compel Arbitration

Cashcall Motion to Compel Arbitration or Dismiss

Inetianbor Opposition

Cashcall Reply

Inetianbor State Court Complaint

Inetianbor State Court Complaint Amendment

An excerpt:

Here, Defendant argues that the arbitration agreement, by its plain language, covers Plaintiff’s claims. The Court agrees. The terms of the agreement are clear: all disputes between the borrower and the holder of the Note or the holder’s servicer must be settled through arbitration. See Loan Agreement at 5-6. In this suit, Plaintiff seeks damages from Cashcall, the servicer of the note, for actions related to Cashcall’s servicing and collecting on the note. See Amended Complaint at 2. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims fall within the scope of the arbitration provision.