Nebraska Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Transfer of ICWA Case to Tribal Court

Here is the opinion in In re the Interest of Leslie S. An excerpt:

The juvenile court found good cause to deny the motion to transfer, relying on the facts that a previous motion to transfer had been denied, that the case had advanced to the stage where a motion for termination of parental rights had been filed, and that the court had jurisdiction over multiple cases involving several of the children. The court also found that the transfer would not be in the children’s best interests.

Upon our de novo review, we are unable to say that the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the motion to transfer. One of the stated circumstances set forth in the non-binding regulations noted above is clearly present in this case; namely, the advanced stage of the proceeding. Francis did not file the motion to transfer until well after 2 years following the filing of the juvenile petition, during which time Francis did very little to participate in the case. At the time of the hearing on this motion to transfer, proceedings had begun to terminate both parents’ parental rights. In addition, the fact that other cases involving some of the children were to remain in the juvenile court is essentially a forum non conveniens matter, which is a valid basis for good cause to deny transfer. See In re Interest of Brittany C. et al., 13 Neb.App. 411, 693 N.W.2d 592 (2005). We observe that because Francis is the biological father of only Iyn and Rena, he did not have standing to seek a transfer relative to Leslie, Glory, and Crystal. Neither the Tribe nor Kinda has appealed from the juvenile court’s decision. Accordingly, our opinion applies only to the ruling relative to Iyn and Rena.

Cherokee Trial Court Holds Hearing on Freedmen Case

From the Cherokee Phoenix (via Pechanga):

TAHLEQUAH, Okla. – The Cherokee Nation District Court held a July 17 hearing for the case of Raymond Nash v. CN Registrar as attorneys for both parties presented arguments for their motions for summary judgment.

A summary judgment is a decision based on statements and evidence presented for the record without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute regarding facts and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The Nash case is a class action lawsuit involving 386 Freedmen descendents claiming they were illegally removed from the CN citizenship rolls by a voter-approved constitutional amendment in March 2007.

Continue reading

Complaint of Former Chief Judge of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Dismissed

The case is Miner v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (D. N.D.). Here are the materials:

Miner Motion for Summary Judgment

[no response]

SRST Motion to Dismiss

Miner Response to Motion to Dismiss

SRST Reply Brief

Miner v Standing Rock DCT Opinion

SRST Administrative Order for Dismissal

SRST Supreme Court Order

SRST Tribal Court Order

CA9 Remands Nonmember Jurisdiction Case to Tribal Court

Here is the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Elliott v. White Mountain Apache Tribal Court. An excerpt:

We are sympathetic to Plaintiff’s concerns about defending her actions in an unfamiliar court system. But, because tribal court jurisdiction is plausible, principles of comity require us to give the tribal courts a full opportunity to determine their own jurisdiction in the first instance.

Here are the materials:

Elliott Opening Brief

White Mountain Appellee Brief

Arizona Inter Tribal Council Amicus Brief

Elliott Reply Brief

API v. Sac & Fox — Cross-Motions Pending

The case is ATTORNEY’S PROCESS AND INVESTIGATION SERVICES, INC. v. SAC & FOX TRIBE OF THE MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA.

After having been reopened (see our post here), post-tribal remedies exhaustion, the tribe filed a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. Both are pending after the court’s order to allow amendment of some of the pleadings.

DCT Order on Motion to Amend

Sac & Fox Motion to Dismiss

API Resistance to Motion to Dismiss

Sac & Fox Reply

API Motion for Summary Judgment

Sac & Fox Resistance to Motion for Summary J

Lozeau v. GEICO — State Court Jurisdiction over Reservation Tort

The question here is whether the Montana Supreme Court would invoke the doctrine of equitable tolling to toll the state statute of limitations where the plaintiff had first filed her tort claim in CSKT tribal court, then filed in state court. The court said yes, reversing a trial court order dismissing the claim.

Lozeau Opinion

Lozeau Appellant Brief

Geico Appellee Brief

Lozeau Reply Brief

Arizona Court of Appeals Affirms Hualapai Immunity in Personal Injury Suit

Here is the unpublished opinion in Rosenberg v. Hualapai Indian Nation.

And the briefs:

rosenberg-brief

hualapai-brief

Case to Watch — Amerind v. Malaterre

The Eighth Circuit will be hearing Amerind v. Malaterre shortly. The appellant’s brief is here (amerind-appellant-brief). Our previous posting, with the district court materials and opinion, and the Turtle Mountain appellate court opinion is here. [Disclosure–I was a sitting appellate judge for the tribal court, but I did not participate in this matter.]

This case is a case to watch because it is a candidate for Supreme Court review under Montana v. United States. Maybe not a great candidate, but anything’s possible in the Roberts Court when it comes to tribal court jurisdiction over nonmembers.

Amerind is an insurance company chartered under federal law (according to my understanding, which could be wrong) that insures tribal housing. This case involves a fire at Turtle Mountain. Plaintiffs sued the Turtle Mountain Housing Authority, which was insured by Amerind. During the tribal court proceedings, the housing authority dropped out as a defendant, leaving Amerind as the insurance company and sole defendant. I suspect there is much confusion on the question of whether an insurance company can be a named defendant as a replacement for the real defendant (or alleged tortfeasor), since it is usually the insurance company that handles the defense and even hires the lawyers. Amerind, like any insurance company, is looking for an out.

Continue reading

Cert Opposition in Coushatta v. Meyer and Assoc.

Here is the cert opp — meyer-assoc-cert-opp

The cert petition is here.

Little River Tribal Court Judge Issues Gag Order on Tribal Enrollment

From Indianz:

“A tribal court in Michigan has issued an injunction ordering a journalist not to report on issues related to “blood quantum” and qualifications for tribal enrollment.

Judge Melissa Pope of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians Tribal Court entered the injunction last month, after another judge issued a temporary restraining order in August 2008. According to Pope’s February 19 order, “Defendants and Plaintiffs shall not discuss any parties’ enrollment in the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians with respect to enrollment fraud, meaning questioning whether any of the parties are properly enrolled; status as a descendant; or blood quantum.” Judge Pope issued the injunction in connection with a libel case against reporter Nancy Kelsey and three other defendants. Among other allegations in their complaint, the plaintiffs claim that Kelsey “sent numerous e-mails claiming that Plaintiffs and their families have engaged in enrollment fraud and are not rightful members of this Tribe.” ”

Get the Story:
Tribal court bans reporter from covering fraud claims (Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press 3/2)