Federal Court Dismisses Casino Slip and Fall, Citing Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine

Here are the materials in Girmai v. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (S.D. Cal.):

Rincon Band Removal Notice

Exhibit 1 — State Ct Complaint

Rincon Band Motion to Dismiss

DCT Order Dismissing Girmai Complaint

Update in Columbe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court (Suit re Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Nonmember)

Here are the materials in the denial of Columbe’s motions for reconsideration and to hold a trial for a permanent injunction (prior post here, with opinion dismissing plaintiff’s claims):

Columbe Motion for Reconsideration

RST Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration

Columbe Motion for Permanent Injunction

RST Opposition to Motion for Permanent Injunction

DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

Earliest post here.

Update in Dollar General v. Mississippi Choctaw: Tribal Jurisdiction Upheld

Here are the materials in Dolgen Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (S.D. Miss.):

Dollar General Motion for Summary J

Mississippi Band Opposition

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Materials from a 2008 TRO motion in the same case are here.

EXC v. Jensen — Nonmember Challenge to Navajo Court Jurisdiction in Tort Case

Here are the materials in EXC, Inc. v. Jensen (D. Ariz.). This is a federal appeal to a Navajo Nation Supreme Court decision affirming jurisdiction over the nonmember company (we posted those materials here).

DCT Order in EXC (denying motion to dismiss)

Jensen Motion to Dismiss

Jensen Motion to Extend Time

Navajo Court Defendants Concurrence in Motion to Dismiss

EXC Response

Jensen Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Jensen Reply in Support of Motion to Extend Time

Government Reply Brief in United States v. Ray Motion for Reconsideration

Here:

US Reply in Ray

Well, the government tempered its complaint about having to go to the federal court by citing the government’s trust duties under United States v. Jicarilla Apache Nation. Seems to be an enormous amount of confusion. Jicarilla is a backdoor repudiation of the trust relationship, not the strong directive to protect tribal property. Whatever.

Earlier materials are here.

Update in Columbe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe

The court has dismissed the plaintiff’s claims that were not appealed to the tribal appellate court for failure to exhaust tribal remedies. Other claims remain extant due to a waiver of immunity.

Here are the materials:

DCT Granting Motion to Dismiss in Part

RST Supplemental Memorandum

RST 2d Supplemental Memorandum

Columbe Affidavit

Prior materials are here.

 

Parties Ordered to Produce Contract Provision that Will Determine Whether Rosebud Sioux Tribe Waived Immunity in Federal Court

Here are the materials in Colombe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.), a convoluted case originating in tribal court on whether the tribal court can pierce the corporate veil of a former gaming management partner of the Tribe:

RST v. BBC Entertainment Tribal Court Order

Rosebud Motion to Dismiss

Colombe Opposition

Rosebud Reply

DCT Order in Colombe

Grand Canyon Skywalk Developer Motion for Reconsideration Denied; Case to Proceed in Tribal Court

Here are the materials:

GCSD’s motion for reconsideration

 

Hualapai Response to Motion for Reconsideration

GCSD Reply in Support of Motion for Reconsideration

DCT Order Denying GCSD Motion for Reconsideration

Student Note on Meyer & Assoc. v. Coushatta Tribe

The Louisiana Law Review has published “Denying Sovereignty: The Louisiana Supreme Court’s Rejection of the Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine” by Carey Austin Holliday.

We posted this opinion a few years back.

Here is the abstract:

In its recent decision in Meyer & Associates, Inc. v. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to require the application of the Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine (the “Doctrine”) in Louisiana state district courts. The Doctrine is a federal jurisprudential rule that applies when a tribal court has a claim of jurisdiction over a dispute. It requires federal courts to abstain from hearing the case until the tribal court has determined whether it can properly retain jurisdiction over the matter. The effect of this ruling by the Louisiana Supreme Court is that tribal courts will be denied the ability, in many instances, to determine questions related to tribal sovereign immunity. The United States Supreme Court has not yet had the occasion to determine whether the Doctrine is required of state courts, and several states have reached different conclusions as to whether their courts will be required to apply the Doctrine. Upon further examination of federal common law, as well as strong prudential considerations in favor of the Doctrine’s application, it becomes apparent that the Louisiana Supreme Court erred in declining to apply the Doctrine to Louisiana state district courts.

Federal Court Dismisses Effort to Block Rincon Eviction of Non-Indian (Alleged) Trespassers

Here are the materials in Rogers-Dial v. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (S.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Dismissing Rogers-Dial Complaint

Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 1

Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 2

Rogers-Dial Motion for PI — Part 3

Rincon Motion to Dismiss

We posted the complaint here.