Ute Tribe Sanctioned for Abuse of Judicial Process/Acting in Bad Faith

Here are the new materials in the long-running Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):

205 Becker Notice of Intent to Subpoena

206 Tribe Motion to Quash

210 Opposition

211 Reply

221 DCT Order to Show Cause

228 Response to Order to Show Cause

234 Becker Memorandum re Tribe’s Documents

235 Becker Response to Order re Sanctions against Tribe

238 Jurrius Reply

243 Tribe Reply

244-1 Becker Surreply

260 DCt Order

261 DCT Order re Unsealing

261-1 Arbitration Statement of Claims

261-2 Jurrius Counterclaims

261-3 Tribe’s Response

261-4 Settlement Agreement

Prior post here.

Federal Court in Oregon Declines to Dismiss Suit against Big Picture Loans-Affiliated Individual

Here are the materials so far in Smith v. Martorello (D. Or.):

100 Amended Complaint

106 Motion to Dismiss

120 Opposition

123 Reply

146 Magistrate Report

148 Objections

149 Rule 19 Motion

150 Response to 148

152 Response to 149

155 Reply in Support of 149

156 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Section 1983 Claim against Warm Springs Police Dept. Brought by Former Tribal Police Officer

Here are the materials in Weaver v. Gregory (D. Or.):

1 Complaint

10 Motion to Dismiss

14 Response

16 Reply

18 DCT Order

Federal Court Dismisses Muscogee (Creek) Nation Suit against Poarch Band Creek over Hickory Ground

Here are the materials in Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians (M.D. Ala.):

190 Second Amended Complaint

200 Federal Motion to Dismiss

202 Tribal Defendants Motion to Dismiss

205 Individual Defendants Motion to Dismiss

210 Response to 200

211 Response to to 205

212 Response to 202

216 Reply in Support of 200

217 Reply in Support of 202

218 Reply in Support o 205

223 DCT Order

Prior posts here.

Materials in Seminole Tribe Contract Breach suit against Energy Company

Here are the materials so far in Evans Energy Partners LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida Inc. (M.D. Fla.):

1 Complaint

1-2 Tribal Court Complaint

1-3 Tribal Court Final Judgment

1-5 AAA Opinion and Order

12 Motion to Dismiss

North Dakota SCT Confirms Tribal Immunity Cloaks Tribal Business

Here are the materials in State of North Dakota by and through Workforce Safety and Insurance v. Cherokee Services Corp.:

2021ND36 — Opinion

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply

Federal Court Allows Some Tobacco Business Claims in Dispute between Sac and Fox, Seneca, and Susanville Rancheria Companies

Here are the materials so far in Allegheny Capital Enterprises LLC v. Cox (W.D. N.Y.):

8 Amended Complaint

17-8 Motion to Dismiss

17-5 Arbitration Decision

21 Response

22 Reply

23 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This is a diversity action commenced by a corporate entity affiliated with the Sac and Fox of Oklahoma Tribe (doing business in the Seneca Nation in New York) and a partnership doing business in the Seneca Nation. They claim that Defendants, officers of affiliated corporations of the Susanville Indian Rancheria (a Native tribe in California, also referred to as “SIR”), made misrepresentations to Plaintiffs that led to Plaintiffs entering into the tobacco manufacturing and distribution contracts with one of the affiliated corporations. Defendants represented that they had the authority to waive tribal sovereign immunity for the affiliate corporation and that the affiliate in fact waived that immunity. After an alleged breach of these contracts, Plaintiffs lodged claims against one of the affiliate corporations, but the corporation successfully asserted that it did not waive its tribal sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs then commenced this action against the officers; they did not name the corporation as a Defendant.

Before this Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 17) the Amended Complaint on sovereign immunity, jurisdictional, and pleading grounds. For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted in part (dismissing claims against Defendants Stacy Dixon and Jolene Robles for lack of personal jurisdiction), denied in part (denying other grounds asserted). After resolution of this motion, Plaintiffs retain claims against Defendant Gretchen Cox.

Wakpamni Lake Corp. Seeks Relief from Default Judgment in TED Bonds Fraud Case

Here is the pleading from Michelin Retirement Plan v. Dilworth Paxon LLP (D.S.C.):

608 WLCC Rule 60 Motion

608-1 Lone Hill Declaration

608-15 Victim Impact Statement

608-16 Raynes Declaration

An excerpt from the motion:

In or about the fall of 2017, a man named Quattlebaum contacted WLCC and Wakpamni Lake Community President Lone Hill on three separate occasions. (Lone Hill Decl. ¶ 27; see also Raynes Decl. ¶ 16.) President Lone Hill understood that Mr. Quattlebaum was Judge Quattlebaum, then a United States District Judge for this Court.1 (Lone Hill Decl. ¶ 27; see also Raynes Decl. ¶ 16.) Mr. Quattlebaum asked President Lone Hill about the financial state of WLCC and Wakpamni Lake Community and about the subject matter of the lawsuit. (Lone Hill Decl. ¶ 27.) Based on the information received, Mr. Quattlebaum deduced that WLCC and the Wakpamni Lake Community were destitute. (Id.) President Lone Hill understood from her conversations with Mr. Quattlebaum that he understood and appreciated their innocent and impoverished position. President Lone Hill further understood and believed that Mr. Quattlebaum—as a judge of this Court—indicated to her that no further action was needed with respect to this case.

Prior post in this case here.