tribal court exhaustion doctrine – Page 7

1.Whether the tribal remedies exhaustion doctrine, which requires federal courts to stay cases challenging tribal jurisdiction until the parties have exhausted parallel tribal court proceedings, applies to state courts as well.

2.Whether the tribal remedies exhaustion doctrine requires that nontribal courts yield to tribal courts when the parties have not invoked the tribal court‘s jurisdiction.

Lower court materials here.

UPDATES:

cert opp brief

SG Brief [Ute]

Petitioners Supplemental Brief

SCOTUS Denies Cert in ICWA and Tribal Jurisdiction Matters

February 20, 2018February 20, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list. The Court denied cert in Renteria v. Superior Court & Norton v. Ute Indian Tribe.

Federal Court Stays Becker v. Ute to Await Tribal Court Rulings

February 19, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):

70 Becker Motion for PI

73 Ute Motion for Summary Judgment [preemption]

74 Ute Motion for Summary Judgment [illegality]

75 Ute Emergency Motion for TRO

84 Becker Opposition

86 Ute Opposition

88 Reply in Support of 75

91 Becker Reply

93 Ute Surreply

101 Ute Motion to Reassign Case

102 DCt Chief Judge Order re 101

103:

Discussion and argument heard on the motions. After taking a recess, and for the reasons stated on the record, the court made the following rulings on the record:
The court DENIES 70 Mr. Becker’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction;
DENIES 71 Motion for Leave to File Sealed Document;
DENIES 75 The Tribe’s Motion for TRO, Motion for Preliminary Injunction, and Motion for Permanent Injunction; and
GRANTS 93 Tribe’s Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply.

The court also stays the case and all remaining pending motions (Dkt. Nos. 72, 73 and 74). Should the tribal court decline jurisdiction, the court will then address the remaining motions. The parties are granted leave to file a motion to lift the stay if circumstances should change before resolution of both the tribal court and state court actions.

Prior posts here.

Federal Court Dismisses Ute Tribal Jurisdiction Challenge on Mootness Grounds

January 31, 2018January 31, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Charles v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):

16 motion to dismiss

23 hackford opposition

25 reply

44 motion to dismiss [mootness]

45 hackford opp

47 other defendants opposition

48 reply

60 dct order

Federal Court Enjoins Cherokee Nation Tribal Court Suit against Opioid Companies

January 10, 2018Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in McKesson Corp. v. Hembree (N.D. Okla.):

138 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Oklahoma is among the states with the highest number of opioid prescriptions per one hundred people and has a high overdose death rate. Tribal communities have been tragically affected, as have other communities in Oklahoma. Numerous cities, counties and states throughout the country, including the state of Oklahoma, have filed lawsuits against various opioid manufactures, pharmaceutical distributors, and other businesses allegedly responsible for the proliferation of opioid drugs. This proceeding concerns a lawsuit by the Cherokee Nation against a number of opioid distributors and pharmacies. However, the question before the Court is not the merits of the Cherokee Nation’s lawsuit but rather the boundaries of tribal court jurisdiction. The Attorney General of the Cherokee Nation has filed suit not in state court but in the tribal district court of the Cherokee Nation. Do the tribal courts of the Cherokee Nation have jurisdiction over this particular action? The Court finds they do not.

Briefs here.

Federal Magistrate Enters Default against Yamassee Tribal Nation Supreme Court in Claim involving JPMorgan Chase

December 29, 2017December 29, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v. Khamsanvong (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

22 Magistrate Order