tribal sovereign immunity

Tribal Court Order Regarding Attorney’s Fees Unenforceable

Kate Fort1 Comment

The Northern District of Oklahoma found that the Muscogee Tribal court did not have jurisdiction over the firm Crowe & Dunlevy who represented Thlopthlocco Tribal Town in an intratribal dispute.  The case began in Muscogee Nation tribal court, but the firm eventually filed suit in federal district court to prevent enforcement of a tribal court order.  Tribal sovereign immunity, Ex parte Young, judicial immunity, Rule 19 and Montana exceptions are all discussed in the decision.

Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidham, — F.Supp.2d —-, (N.D.Okla. Apr 24, 2009) (NO. 09-CV-095-TCK-PJC)

Federal Government Cert Opposition Brief in Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing Authority

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the government’s cert opp in this important sovereign immunity case — federal-cert-opp-marceau

The Supreme Court Project’s materials are here and the cert petition is here.

District Court Denies Preliminary Injunction — Oglala Sioux v. C&W Enters.

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Indianz reported here. Our previous posting with links to materials is here.

Here is the opinion — dct-order-denying-preliminary-injunction

And the brief filed opposing the injunction from C&W — cw-opposition-to-motion-for-injunction

Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule in Native Tobacco Wholesaler Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case is Idaho v. Native Wholesale Supply, out of the District of Idaho. The district court remanded the case back to state court.

dct-order-remanding-to-state-court

native-wholesale-motion-to-dismiss

idaho-motion-to-remand

nws-opposition-to-motion-to-remand

idaho-reply-brief

Employment Discrimination Claim against Chickasaw Nation Industries Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The case is Bales v. Chickasaw Nation Industries, out of the District of New Mexico. Here is the DCT order — dct-order-dismissing-bales-complaint

An excerpt:

On March 31, 2008, Defendant filed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 9) based on tribal sovereign immunity. On June 13, 2008, the Court informed the parties by letter that on March 19, 2008 the Tenth Circuit heard oral argument in Native American Distributing, et al. v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Company, et al, 546 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir.2008)(hereinafter referred to as NAD ), a case discussing tribal sovereign immunity with respect to an Oklahoma tribal corporation. The Court also gave the parties an opportunity to supplement their briefs to address the significance of the Tenth Circuit’s decision in NAD. The parties, in fact, filed supplemental briefs. See Doc. Nos. 24, 25, and 26. Having considered the briefs (including the supplemental briefs) and the relevant law, the Court concludes that the motion to dismiss should be granted and that this lawsuit should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

And the briefs:

Continue reading →

California v. San Pasqual Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

This is the same kind of petition California filed a month ago in parallel cases involving Chachil Dehe Band and Rincon Band.

california-v-san-pasqual-band-cert-petition

Connecticut Court Dismisses Dram Shop Action against Mohegans

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Maybe another one to watch involving the state law question of whether tribal businesses are immune from Dram Shop actions. The case is Vanstaen-Holland v. Lavigne.

vanstaen-holland-v-lavigne-trial-court-order

Oglala Sioux Tribe Wins TRO in Sovereign Immunity Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The case is Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C&W Enters., on remand to the District of South Dakota from the Eighth Circuit. Here is the order on the TRO — ost-v-cw-dct-order-on-tro

The case involves a contract waiver of immunity through an arbitration clause. Here are the Eighth Circuit materials.

Lawyer Threatened with Rule 11 Sanctions If Brings Another Claim against Oneida Indian Nation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Smith v. Oneida Employment Services (smith-v-oneida-dct-order), out of the Northern District of New York. Indianz and others have reported on this case, which was an employment claim dismissed on grounds of sovereign immunity. Here is the footnote regarding Rule 11 (and for more discussion on Rule 11 see my paper here):

Although the Court could sanction Plaintiff’s counsel for violating Rule 11 based on several of the factual allegations and legal arguments that he has submitted to the Court in this litigation, it will not do so at this time. However, the Court advises Plaintiff’s counsel that the Court will not tolerate such conduct in the future and will not hesitate to impose sanctions on him for any future violations.

Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms Tribal Sovereign Immunity

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case is Freemanville Water System, Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians (opinion). Our post on the district court case is here. An excerpt:

After a hard look at the statute the only thing that is unmistakably clear to us is that the statutory language does not make it unmistakably clear that Congress intended to abrogate tribal sovereign immunity from lawsuits claiming a violation of the anti-curtailment provision [of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act]. See Kimel, 528 U.S. at 73, 120 S. Ct. at 640.

And here are the appellate briefs:

Continue reading →