tribal court jurisdiction over nonmembers – Page 11

Federal Court Denies Discovery into Tribal Judicial Bias Claims

November 11, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the order in FMC Corp. v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (D. Idaho):

An excerpt:

To allow a litigant to conduct full-blown discovery here, after he failed to conduct discovery in the tribal court litigation, would ignore National Farmers and Iowa Mutual. Those cases directed that all issues be fully presented to the tribal court so that it might cure any problems and give the federal court the benefit of its expertise. If a due process issue like judicial bias is not fully developed through discovery before being presented to the tribal court – and the litigant simply sits on his discovery rights until he gets into federal court – the tribal court never gets a chance to review the discovery, apply its expertise, and cure any unfair judicial bias revealed by the discovery. That is antithetical to the analysis of National Farmers and Iowa Mutual.

Briefs here. The tribal court decision below is here.

Cert Stage Briefing Complete in Jensen v. EXC Inc.

November 3, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Jensen Cert Petition

EXC Cert Opp

Jensen Reply

Lower court materials here.

Update in Western Sky-Related Proceedings

November 2, 2015November 2, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are materials in Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank NA (M.D. N.C.):

162 Dillion Motion to Compel re Generations

164 Dillon Motion to Compel

165 Bay Cities Bank Opposition

166 Generations Community FCU Opposition

170 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Using the Heldt analysis, however, Plaintiffs’ logic can be used to assert a colorable claim of tribal jurisdiction, because some of Defendants’ actions involved alleged tribal entities and/or tribal members.”). Operating against that backdrop, these courts mandated tribal exhaustion where the record did not establish (i) the nature of the payday lenders’ relationship to each other and/or the tribe; (ii) the unavailability of the specified tribal arbitral forum; and (iii) for purposes of the Western Sky agreement, (A) who constitutes an “authorized representative of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Nation” and (B) whether any such authorized representative “is a JAMS or AAA arbitrator,” Heldt, 12 F. Supp. 3d at 1193 (internal quotation marks omitted).See id. at 1184-87, 1190-93; see also Brown, 84 F. Supp. 3d at 480-81 (following Heldt).

As discussed below, Dillon bases his Requests and Motions to Compel in significant part on a need to develop a factual record sufficient to overcome the concerns in the Heldt line of cases. (See, e.g., Docket Entry 162 at 1-2; Docket Entry 162-2 at 4-6.).

We posted on this Rule 19 portion of this case here.