tribal court exhaustion doctrine – Page 24

Ninth Circuit Rejects Challenge to 2001 Crow Constitution

March 31, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Harris v. Parisien.

And an excerpt from a local news article (Billings Gazette):

A federal appeals court has rejected a Billings woman’s claim that her rights were violated when the Crow Tribe of Indians adopted a new constitution in 2001.

Frances Harris is an enrolled member of the Crow Tribe. She sued in U.S. District Court, seeking to invalidate the 2001 tribal constitution because it eliminated a voting district for tribal members who do not live on the Crow Indian Reservation.

Continue reading →

Graham v. Applied Geo Techs — Failure to Exhaust Tribal Court Remedies

March 26, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in this case, out of the Southern District of Mississippi, where a plaintiff brought a race discrimination suit against a tribally owned enterprise (Mississippi Band Choctaw).

defendant-motion-to-dismiss

defendant-rebuttal-memorandum

graham-dct-order-dismissing-claim

District Court Refuses to Dismiss ERISA Claim against Tribal Business

March 22, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Vandever v. Osage Nation Enterprises, out of the Northern District of Oklahoma. The court rejected a magistrate report and recommendation to dismiss an ERISA claim against ONE and the Osage Nation, and also rejected a request by the Nation to require the plaintiff to exhaust tribal court remedies.

dct-order-rejecting-magistrate-report

vandever-magistrate-report

Continue reading →

Coushatta Tribe v. Meyer & Associates Cert Petition

February 7, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This case involves the question of whether state courts have to comply with the tribal court exhaustion doctrine. Here is the petition — coushatta-tribe-v-meyer-and-assoc-cert-petition

Here is the lower court opinion, from the Louisiana Supreme Court.

CA9 Decides Philip Morris v. King Mountain Tobacco

January 21, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion from the Ninth Circuit denying that a colorable claim to tribal court jurisdiction existed in this trademark violation issue. And here are the briefs:

philip-morris-opening-brief

king-mountain-response-brief

philip-morris-reply-brief

Section 1303 Tribal Court Exhaustion — Bercier v. Turtle Mountain Tribal Court

January 18, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

bercier-v-turtle-mountain-tribal-court

Attorney’s Process and Investigation Services v. Sac and Fox Tribe — Case Reopened

January 11, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

This case arises out of alleged tortious nonmember conduct during the leadership dispute at Meskawki a few years back. In 2005, the Northern District of Iowa applied the tribal court exhaustion doctrine as justification for staying the case (nov-2005-dct-order). The tribal court’s processes have run (motion-to-reopen-case [includes tribal court decision]), and now the case has been reopened (dct-order-reopening-case).

This will be a very interesting application of the Montana test, if the court reaches the merits.

Dollar General v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians — Tribal Court Jurisdiction — Updated

January 7, 2009July 7, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher7 Comments

The Southern District of Mississippi granted a TRO against the tribal court in a case brought by tribal members against the owner of a Dollar General on tribal trust land. How this case doesn’t meet the Montana 1 test is beyond me.

Here are the materials:

dolgen-v-miss-band-tribal-court-dct-order

Miss Band Choctaw SCT Opinion

dollar-general-motion-for-tro

townsend-motion-for-tro

mississippi-band-response

dollar-general-reply-brief

Federal Court Rejects Tribal Court Jurisdiction under VAWA

December 30, 2008Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Western District of Washington rejected a claim that the Violence Against Women Act confers tribal court jurisdiction over personal protection orders issued against non-Indians. In this case, Martinez v. Martinez, the Suquamish Tribal Court had issued a PPO against a non-Indian man in favor of an Alaskan Native woman. They both lived on non-Indian-owned land on the Port Madison Reservation. The court also ruled that the tribal court exhaustion doctrine does not apply in this case.

Here are the materials:

defendant-martinez-motion-to-dismiss

suquamish-tribe-motion-to-dismiss

plaintiff-martinez-response-to-motions

defendant-martinez-reply-brief

suquamish-tribe-reply-brief

dct-order-rejecting-tribal-court-jurisdiction