Here are the materials in Dakota Metal Fabrication v. Parisien (D.N.D.):

Here are the materials in Dakota Metal Fabrication v. Parisien (D.N.D.):
Here is the opinion in Williams v. Martorello.
An excerpt:
This class-action proceeding relates to a lending scheme allegedly designed to circumvent state usury laws. Matt Martorello appeals from three district court rulings that (1) reconsidered prior factual findings based on a new finding that Martorello made misrepresentations that substantially impacted the litigation, (2) found that the plaintiffs- appellees—Virginia citizens who took out loans (the “Borrowers”)—did not waive their right to participate in a class-action suit against him, and (3) granted class certification.
In particular, Martorello argues that the district court violated the mandate rule by making factual findings related to the misrepresentations that contradicted this Court’s holding in the prior appeal and then relying on those factual findings when granting class certification. He also contends that the Borrowers entered into enforceable loan agreements with lending entities in which they waived their right to bring class claims against him. In addition, he asserts that common issues do not predominate so as to permit class treatment in this case.
As explained below, we disagree with Martorello. We conclude that the district court did not violate the mandate rule and that the Borrowers did not waive the right to pursue the resolution of their dispute against him in a class-action proceeding. Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting class certification because common issues predominate. Accordingly, we affirm the rulings of the district court.
Briefs here.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in Williams v. Big Picture Loans LLC (E.D. Va.) (this case is on remand from the Fourth Circuit):
960 DCT Order re Motion for Protective Order
1090 DCT Order Denying Motion for Stay Pending Appeal
1106 DCT on Motion to Certify Class
Prior post here.
Here is the order in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):
An excerpt:
Shortly after judgment was entered in this case, PPN constituted its Tribal Court for the first time; there is no evidence that it ever existed in any meaningful way until then. Days after the newly appointed judge issued standing orders, PPN filed a civil complaint in that Tribal Court that seeks to (1) declare the judgment issued in this case invalid, (2) limit and control—indeed, vitiate—the scope of enforcement of that judgment, and (3) impose roughly eleven million dollars in liability on JW Gaming for alleged fraud stemming from the same loan agreement here. The lawsuit names not only JW Gaming but its attorneys in this matter and the bank at which PPN maintains accounts that was recently subpoenaed in the course of enforcement of the judgment. It is the first (and, as far as the record shows, only) case brought in the Tribal Court. Remarkably, up until the eve of the hearing on a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against the proceeding, which I ultimately denied, JW Gaming could not find publicly available information about how appear in that proceeding (despite being served with a summons), who the judge was, or what the rules were.
JW Gaming moved for an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue, which I denied. It then moved for the TRO, which I converted into a motion for a preliminary injunction once PPN’s counsel committed to placing the Tribal Court proceeding on hold. That motion is now ripe for decision.
It is critical that federal courts respect tribal sovereignty and tribal court jurisdiction. Tribes are sovereign nations. Their ability to govern themselves and enjoy the full benefits of sovereignty is unquestioned. Tribal courts, as arms of the tribe, are entitled to substantial comity and deference under established federal law. I previously denied JW Gaming’s motion for an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue out of these concerns. I remain vigilant about the compelling interest that PPN has in maintaining its sovereignty.
Those concerns, however, do not prevent an injunction against a Tribal Court proceeding that seeks to invalidate or interfere with the judgment entered in this Court. There are compelling interests in ensuring that enforcement of valid federal-court judgments is not interfered with, that JW Gaming is not required to litigate a lawsuit precision-engineered to invalidate and interfere with this one, and that third parties are not exposed to court orders or liability for simply enforcing a judgment or attempting to comply with the procedures for enforcing it. To the extent the lawsuit seeks to invalidate the judgment or interfere with enforcement, it is unquestionably meritless: a tribal court lacks authority to invalidate a federal court’s judgments or to dictate the scope of executing that those judgments. JW Gaming has shown it is entitled to a preliminary injunction to the extent that the Tribal Court proceedings attempts to invalidate, interfere with, or thwart the judgment entered here. I possess jurisdiction to enter this injunction to protect and effectuate the judgment. The doctrine of tribal court exhaustion does not apply because PPN exercised its sovereign power to clearly, expressly, and unequivocally waive it.
Briefs and related materials here.
Here are the materials in Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians (M.D. Ala.):
202 Tribal Defendants Motion to Dismiss
205 Individual Defendants Motion to Dismiss
Prior posts here.
Here are the materials in Williams v. Big Picture Loans LLC (E.D. Va.) (this case is on remand from the Fourth Circuit):
613 Martorello Statement of Position
784 Williams Statement of Position
910 Williams Supplemental Memorandum
Excerpts: Continue reading
Here are the updated materials in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):
184 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
191 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
Prior post here.
Case tag here.
UPDATE (7/7/2020):
220 Individual Tribal Defendants Opposition to 191
221 Plaintiffs Opposition to 210-212
223 Reply in Support of 210-212
UPDATE (1/20/2021)
267 JW Gaming Supplemental Brief
Update (3/28/2021):
286 Motion for Reconsideration
Update (6/8/2021):
333 JW Gaming Motion to Enjoin Tribal Court Case
Here:
petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari.pdf
Question presented:
Whether an Indian tribe’s governing body can be stripped of its sovereign immunity from suit for actions taken by its members in their official capacities, as long as a plaintiff merely names the members individually and those officials will be bound by any judgment entered.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):
129 Tribal Motion for Summary J
Prior posts here.
UPDATE:
You must be logged in to post a comment.