The first round of briefs (state, anti-payday loan amici, etc.) is here. The responses (mostly tribal) are here. And the final brief (state’s reply brief — State Reply Brief).
tribal sovereign immunity
Dicara v. Cahuilla Band — Immunity Waiver in Gaming Contract Dispute
Here is the opinion from the California Court of Appeals (4th Dist., Div. 2).
An excerpt:
The trial court issued a postjudgment assignment order (Code of Civ. Proc., § 708.510) against the Cahuilla Band of Indians (Cahuilla), in favor of Mary DiCara dba Scott Leasing (Scott). Cahuilla contends the assignment order should be reversed because (1) the superior court did not have jurisdiction to issue the order; (2) the lease agreement, upon which the underlying damage award was based, was void since inception; and (3) federal law and Cahuilla’s revenue allocation plan preempt the superior court’s order. Scott contends that it should be awarded attorney’s fees on appeal. We affirm the judgment and award attorney’s fees to Scott.
The trial court issued a postjudgment assignment order (Code of Civ. Proc.,§ 708.510)1, 2 against the Cahuilla Band of Indians (Cahuilla), in favor of Mary DiCaradba Scott Leasing (Scott). Cahuilla contends the assignment order should be reversedbecause (1) the superior court did not have jurisdiction to issue the order; (2) the leaseagreement, upon which the underlying damage award was based, was void sinceinception; and (3) federal law and Cahuilla’s revenue allocation plan preempt thesuperior court’s order. Scott contends that it should be awarded attorney’s fees onappeal. We affirm the judgment and award attorney’s fees to Scott.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Counterclaims against Kalispel Tribe
Here is the opinion in Kalispel Tribe v. Spokane Raceway Park (unpublished opinion).
An excerpt:
We need not decide whether the Tribe waived its immunity to Orville Moe’s counterclaim for contract damages as a third-party beneficiary, because Moe failed to present a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). Neither the Joint Venture Agreement nor any other document specified the amount of compensation board members were to receive or how that amount was to be determined. Given the lack of details in the agreement, Moe had to produce evidence of what compensation was due and that the Tribe was responsible for that compensation. He failed to do so.
We need not decide whether the Tribe waived its immunity to Orville Moe’scounterclaim for contract damages as a third-party beneficiary, because Moe failedto present a genuine issue for trial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324(1986). Neither the Joint Venture Agreement nor any other document specified theamount of compensation board members were to receive or how that amount wasto be determined. Given the lack of details in the agreement, Moe had to produceevidence of what compensation was due and that the Tribe was responsible for thatcompensation. He failed to do so.
Steiger v. Little River Casino — Title VII Complaint
Here are the early materials in Steiger v. Little River Casino Resort, a sex discrimination claim under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act:
Not sure how the plaintiff’s lawyer thinks the federal court has jurisdiction over this. The complaint just cites Title VII, without any argument as to why it could possibly apply to a tribe or its business. Other doing the same have been subject to Rule 11 sanctions (see our paper here).
Arizona Court of Appeals Dismisses Contract Claim Appeal against Yavapai
Here is the opinion in MM&A Productions v. Yavapai-Apache Nation (opinion). An excerpt:
Appellant MM & A Productions appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of its action against the Yavapai-Apache Nation’s Cliff Castle Casino (“the Tribe”). MM & A maintains the Tribe waived its sovereign immunity and the court erred in concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the action. It also maintains the court wrongly “accelerate[d] the date by which [it] needed to appeal,” and erred in denying its motion for relief under Rule 60(c), Ariz. R. Civ. P. Because none of the orders from which MM & A appeals is appealable, we conclude we lack jurisdiction of this matter and dismiss the appeal.
Additional Briefing in Cash Advance Case @ Colorado Supreme Court
Here is the next round of briefs (first round was here, an additional round is expected after the holidays):
N.Y. Appellate Division Dismisses Contract Counterclaims against Oneida
Here is the opinion in Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Hunt Construction Group, reversing a trial court order that accepted jurisdiction over four counterclaims against the Nation — Oneida Indian Nation v. Hunt Constr Group
An excerpt:
Plaintiff, the owner of the Turning Stone Casino & Resort, commenced this action seeking damages resulting from the alleged breach by defendant of its construction contract with plaintiff. Plaintiff moved to dismiss the second through fifth counterclaims on the ground that it had waived sovereign immunity only with respect to counterclaims seeking to enforce the terms of the contract and thus that Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the second through fifth counterclaims. We agree with plaintiff that the court erred in denying those parts of the motion seeking to dismiss the second counterclaim to the extent it alleges the breach of implied warranties; the fourth counterclaim, for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment; and the fifth counterclaim, for an account stated. We therefore modify the order accordingly.
US Dismissed from Employment Claim against Tribal Defense Contractor
The case is Rovinsky v. Choctaw Manufacturing and Development Corp. (D. N.J.). Here are the materials:
Rovinsky v Choctaw Mfg and Dev Corp DCT Order
The tribal motion to dismiss was denied but without prejudice, so it may be refiled at a later date.
Federal Court Declines to Issue Injunction in Timbisha Leadership Dispute
Here is the opinion in Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. Kennedy (E.D. Cal.) — Timbisha Shoshone v Kennedy DCT Order
And the briefs:
Tunica-Biloxi Tribe Immune from Counterclaim in Land Case
Here is the opinion in Tunica-Biloxi Tribe v. Blalock, from the Louisiana Court of Appeals. And a dissent.
An excerpt:
The Tribe filed its initial possessory action against the Blalocks seeking damages and requesting the filing of any adverse ownership claim by the Blalocks over a larger parcel of property. Notably, River View is absent both from this petition and from the subsequent stipulated judgment in which the Blalocks asserted an ownership interest in the portion of the disputed property now claimed by River View. In addition to asserting its own ownership interest via the petition of intervention, Riverview seeks a judgment establishing a boundary between the larger parcel now in possession by the Tribe and the parcel claimed by the Blalocks and, now, River View. It also seeks a “Judgment ordering the Tunica Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana to surrender possession of the property owned by the Intervenor.”
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.