Nooksack COA Issues Opinion in Lomeli v. Kelly Contempt Appeal

Here:

Lomeli v Kelly COA Opening Brief re Contempt of Court

Lomeli v Kelly COA Contempt Response Brief of Appellees

Lomeli v Kelly COA Contempt Reply Brief re Contempt of Court

Lomeli v Kelly COA Opinion re Contempt

Lower court order here.

Nooksack Tribal Court Dismisses St. Germain v. Kelly

Here:

St Germain v. Kelly Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and Brief in Support of Motion To Dismiss

St Germain v Kelly Brief in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

St Germain v. Kelly Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

St Germain v. Kelly Plaintiffs’ Reply re Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

St. Germain v. Kelly Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Dimiss Cross Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

St. Germain v. Kelly Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment

The court previously had issued a TRO favoring plaintiffs in this matter.

Nooksack Tribal Dismisses Adams v. Kelly II

Here:

Adams v Kelly II Plaintiffs’ Amended Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss

Adams v Kelly II Amended Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss

Adams v Kelly II Defendants’ Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

Adams v Kelly II Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Opening Appellate Brief in Lomeli v. Kelly — Contempt Matter in Nooksack Disenrollment Dispute

Here:

Lomeli v Kelly COA Opening Brief re Contempt of Court

Lower court order here.

Updates to Various Nooksack Disenrollment Cases

Here are the new materials in St. Germain v. Kelly — the Christmas TRO:

St Germain v Kelly Denial Order on Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt

St Germain v Kelly Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt

St. Germain v Kelly Declaration of Agripina Smith

St Germain v Kelly Declaration of Leah Zapata

St. Germain v Kelly Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion of Order to Show Cause Re Contempt

Here are the new materials in Adams v. Kelly I:

Adams v Kelli I Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Adams v Kelly I Motion to Dismiss

Adams v Kelly I Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss

Adams v Kelly I Reply to Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion to Dismiss

Here are the new materials in Adams v. Kelly II — MLK removal of two council members:

Adams v Kelly II Order Denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary InjunctionWrit of Mandamus

Adams v Kelly II Councilperson Michelle Roberts Declaration

Adams v Kelly II Declaration of Chairman Robert Kelly Jr

Adams v Kelly II Motion for Preliminary Injunction-Writ of Mandamus

Adams v Kelly II Reply Re Motion for Preliminary Injunction-Writ of Mandamus

Adams v Kelly II Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction – Writ of Mandamus

And an order in Lomeli v. Kelly:

Lomeli v Kelly Order Denying Motion for Order to Show Cause Re- Contempt

Nooksack Tribal Court Materials on Disenrollees Motion for Contempt

Here are the new materials in St. Germaine v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

St Germain v. Kelly Motion for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt

St Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Leah Zapata

St. Germain v. Kelly Declaration of Agripina Smith

St. Germain v. Kelly Response to Plaintiffs Motion of Ord to Show Cause Re Contempt

Previous materials in this case are here and here.

 

Nooksack Issues TRO in Nooksack Tribal Christmas Checks Dispute with Proposed Disenrollees

Here are the new materials in St. Germaine v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

St Germain v Kelly Brief in Support of TRO Relief

St Germain v Kelly Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Motion for TRO

St Germain v Kelly Order Granting Motion for TRO

An excerpt from the order:

Therefore, the Court finds that, at this preliminary TRO stage in this matter, the Defendants have violated the Nooksack Indian Tribe’s Constitution, Article IX and the Equal Protection clause of the Indian Civil Rights Act in passing Resolution 13-171 and acting upon it. The Court orders that the Defendants be enjoined from treating the proposed disenrollees differently from other tribal members with respect to the Christmas Support distribution. However, the Court finds that the Court cannot order specific relief requiring the expenditure of tribal funds. The Court hopes, however, that the Defendants will consider the implications of Resolution 13-171 and treat the Plaintiff proposed-disenrollees fairly, despite the fact that the Court is prohibited by the law from ordering them to do so.