Federal Court Declines (again) to Apply Equitable Defenses re: Osage Mineral Council

Here are updated materials in United States v. Osage Wind LLC (N.D. Okla.):

219 Amended DCT Order

229 Motion for Reconsideration

234 Osage Wind Response

235 US Response

244 Reply to Osage Wind

245 Reply to US

264 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration

Prior post here.

Tenth Circuit Orders Tribal Court Exhaustion in Ute Dispute with Former Contractor

Here is the opinion in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe.

Briefs:

Ute Opening Brief

Becker Brief

Lawrence Brief

Ute Reply

Lower court order here:

136 DCT Order in 16-579

Briefs in a related appeal, No. 18-4013, are here:

Ute Opening Brief 18-4013

Lawrence Brief 18-4013

Becker Brief 18-4013

Other posts on these matters here.

Denezpi v. United States — Cert Petition re: CFR Courts as Federal Courts

Here is the petition and appendix:

Cert Petition

Appendix

Lower court materials here.

Question presented:

Is the Court of Indian Offenses of Ute Mountain Ute Agency a federal agency such that Merle Denezpi’s conviction in that court barred his subsequent prosecution in a United States District Court for a crime arising out of the same incident?

Update:

Federal Opposition Brief

Tenth Circuit Issues Decision Favoring US in 2016 Dog Head Fire at Isleta Pueblo

Here is the opinion in Ohlsen v. United States.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

US Brief

Reply

An excerpt:

In the summer of 2016, a large fire, later known as the Dog Head Fire, engulfed Isleta Pueblo and United States Forest Service land in the Manzano Mountains of New Mexico. By the time it was extinguished, the fire had burned several thousand acres of land. The fire resulted from forest-thinning work performed by Pueblo crewmembers under an agreement with the Forest Service. The partnership to thin the forest arose after numerous fires had beset the surrounding areas.

Insurance companies and several owners of destroyed property (collectively, “Appellants”) sued the government, alleging negligence under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). Their negligence claims fell into two categories: the government’s own negligence arising from acts of Forest Service employees, and the government’s negligence arising from acts of the Pueblo crewmembers. The government moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and, alternatively, for summary judgment on that same basis. The district court granted the government summary judgment. First, the court concluded that the Pueblo crewmembers had acted as independent contractors of the government, and thus, the government wasn’t subject to FTCA liability based on the Pueblo crewmembers’ negligence. Additionally, the court barred these claims under the FTCA’s administrative-exhaustion requirement. Second, the court barred Appellants’ claims premised on the Forest Service employees’ own negligence, under the FTCA’s discretionary-function exception.

On appeal, Appellants contend that the district court erred in ruling that the FTCA jurisdictionally barred their claims. We disagree. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Title VII Claims against Chickasaw Nation Business

Here is the unpublished opinion in Bacy v. Chickasaw Nation Industries Inc.

Briefs:

Opening Brief

Answer Brief

Reply

Lower court opinion here:

40 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Remaining Comanche Claims against US over Chickasaw Casino

Here are the materials in Comanche Nation of Oklahoma v. de la Vega [formerly Zinke, then Bernhardt, and now should be Haaland] (W.D. Okla.):

106-1 Second Amended Complaint

113 Motion to Dismiss

120 Response

123 Reply

124 DCT Order

Prior posts here, here, and here.