tribal leadership dispute

Update in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar — Updated 9/27/13

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

The court has issued an opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar (D. D.C.):

DCT Order

From the order:

This matter is before the Court on Intervenor-Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), and for failure to state a claim, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Mot.”), Dkt. No. 58, at 2 (Mar. 26, 2012). Intervenor-Defendant also argues that it is a required party but that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, id. at 21; for clarity the Court will construe this argument as a motion to join a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(2). Because the Court agrees that Intervenor-Defendant is a required party but not that its joinder is precluded by sovereign immunity, the motion to join a required party is GRANTED. Because the Court finds Intervenor-Defendant’s remaining arguments to be largely — but not entirely — without merit, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Materials are here.

Update — additional materials:

2013 09 20 Motion for Reconsideration

2013 09 20 Motion for Stay Pending Reconsideration

DCT Order Denying Stay

Materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Salazar (Tribal Dispute)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here:

CVMT Motion to Dismiss

Federal Cross-Motion for Summary J

Plaintiffs Opposition

2013 07 05 CONFORMED Motion to Expedite

Opposition to Motion to Expedite

2013 07 26 Reply in Support of Motion to Expedite

Previous posts on this dispute here and here.

Federal Court Grants Cal. Valley Miwok Council Motion to Intervene in Leadership Suit against BIA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is that order:

2012 03 26 Memorandum Opinion and Order

Court Declines to Issue Injunction in Timbisha Band Leadership Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in the case styled Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. Kennedy (E.D. Cal.) — Timbisha DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs have failed to make a “clear showing” that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims. Defendants have raised multiple jurisdictional challenges that may bar Plaintiffs’ action. Moreover, Plaintiffs wholly ignore Defendants’ challenges to the merits of their causes of action. Although Plaintiffs establish that they are suffering harm, this Court is uncertain that Plaintiffs have standing to redress their harm through this action without interjecting itself into the internal affairs of the Tribe. In addition, Defendants have also established that they are suffering harm as a result of Defendants actions. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction that go beyond preserving the status quo to require Defendants to relinquish governing authority of the Tribe, something they believe they rightfully hold. Based on the uncertainty of the BIA decisions, the Tribe’s right to self determination and self-governments, and Plaintiffs’ failure to address the merits of their claims, this Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.