tribal payday lenders – Turtle Talk

Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on defendants’ third affirmative defense; that some defendants are protected by or some claims extinguished by tribal immunity. In their opposition, defendants admit they personally “are not entitled to assert or invoke sovereign immunity as a defense to these claims” but nonetheless argue plaintiffs’ litigation “of these claims against shareholders of entities providing contractual services to those lenders is a significant infringement on the sovereignty of the tribes. . . . .” Dkt. No. 197 at 22. Defendants miss the point. The claims here hinge on the personal conduct of the defendants. While that conduct is based in significant part on the services defendants personally engaged in or approved to be provided to the Tribes, the claims do not impede on the sovereignty of the Tribes where the Tribes are not defendants in this case and no Tribal Entities remain. Absent apposite caselaw or facts showing how this action “interferes with the purpose or operation of a federal policy regarding tribal interests,” tribal immunity is irrelevant to this action.

SCOTUS Remands Four Okla. Criminal Cases, Grants Cert in Financial Services Cases Involving Tribal Businesses

July 9, 2020July 9, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is today’s order list.

The Court granted review in AMG Capital Management LLC v. Federal Trade Commission. Here is the Ninth Circuit’s opinion in FTC v. AMG Capital Management LLC. District court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Consumer Financial Protection Board v. Great Plains Lending

March 3, 2015June 7, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Great Plains Lending Opening Brief

CFPB Answer Brief

Great Plains Lending Reply Brief

Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Who Won Indian Law and Policy 2014? First Round Bracket — 8 of 8

January 7, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Last one for the day!

Still on category 4, groups.

# 2 Tribal Supreme Court Project

They’ve need a win, and Bay Mills was a biggie! While they were unable to persuade SCOTUS not to take the case in the first (even the SG failed there), and they were unable to persuade the tribe not to bring this case in the first place, but that said, they did help tribal interests avoid problems in a lot of other cases (here, here, here, here, and here). Actually, I have no idea if they helped or not but we’ll give them some credit anyway.

# 15 Tribal Law and Policy Institute

Always been a big fan of Jerry Gardner and his crew. One of the funniest men around. Did amazing work on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian and Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence Report this year.

#7 Native American Bar Association

NABA will be releasing a report arising out of a survey that over 500 Indian lawyers completed this year, so maybe this posting is a year early.

#10 Tribal In-House Counsel Association

New organization that has the potential to revolutionize the practice of law in Indian country. I’m hoping that TICA members will be able to cut through a lot of this in the coming generation.

#3 Authors of law review articles on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Yes, there’s a lot, lot, lot of these out there. Some are brilliant and inspiring, some are, well, kinda scary.

#14 Authors of law review articles on Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community

Not as many, and most are less scary. Here, here, here, here. Some are just weird.

# 6 Carcieri challengers

The people, groups, tribes, and states and state subdivisions that want to use a poorly-reasoned Supreme Court decision to stop Indian gaming at all costs are legion. Samples here, here, here, here, here, here, and elsewhere (just type Carcieri into TT’s search engine). Interior has opined about it here.

# 11 Tribal sovereign lenders

Yep.

Second Circuit Affirms Otoe-Missouria Tribe v. New York Dept. of Financial Regulation

October 1, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion:

13-3769_opn

From the court’s syllabus:

Plaintiffs‐appellants (“plaintiffs”) appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Richard J. Sullivan, Judge). Plaintiffs are two Native American tribes, tribal regulatory agencies, and companies owned by the tribes that offered high interest, short‐term loans over the internet. The interest rates on the loans exceeded caps imposed by New York State law. When the New York State Department of Financial Services sought to bar out‐of‐state lenders from extending such loans to New York residents, the plaintiffs sued for a preliminary injunction, claiming that New York’s ban violated the Indian Commerce Clause. But plaintiffs bore the burden of proving that the challenged transactions fell within their regulatory domain, and the District Court held that they failed to establish a sufficient factual basis to find in their favor. Because this conclusion was a reasonable one, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the injunction.

Briefs here. Lower court materials here.

More Payday Lending Litigation

April 22, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is a new class action filed in California, Labajo v. First International Bank & Trust (C.D. Cal.), alleging involvement by Miami Tribe and Santee Sioux:

1 Class Action Complaint

And another First International-related suit, Graham v. BMO Harris Bank NA (D. Conn.):

176-1 First International Motion to Dismiss

179 Russo Response

180 First International Reply