tribal sovereign immunity – Page 24

Jones’s objections to the Reports do not raise any new arguments to support his claim that his premises liability claim is not barred by sovereign immunity. He instead continues to argue that this court should follow Wilkes v. PCI Gaming Authority, 287 So.3d 330, and hold that the Tribe’s sovereign immunity is waived in the interests of justice. But as discussed in the first Report, the only court to cite Wilkes has declined to follow it. See Oertwich v. Traditional Vill. of Togiak, 413 F. Supp. 3d 963, 968 (D. Alaska 2019). The court agrees with the magistrate judge that “Wilkes, an Alabama Supreme Court decision that has never been cited by any circuit court, is not enough for this court to override both Fifth Circuit case law dismissing damages claims based on tribal sovereign immunity or the case law from other circuits upholding sovereign immunity for claims sounding in tort.” (Doc. #25, at 6). Thus, this claim must be dismissed.

Fourth Circuit Briefs in Ledford v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians [pro se ICRA takings claim]

January 12, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Ledford Brief

Tribe Brief

Lower court materials here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Landreth v. United States [Ownership of Lake Quinault]

January 8, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Landreth Opening Brief

Quinault Answering Brief

US Answer Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Tort Claim against Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation Gaming Company

January 5, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Nguyen v. Cache Creek Resort Casino (E.D. Cal.):

29 Motion for Sanctions

31 Magistrate Report

Church Parishioners Cert Petition in Seminole Tribe Immunity Case

December 14, 2020May 17, 2021Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the petition in Eglise Baptiste Bethanie De Ft. Lauderdale Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida:

Eglise Baptiste v Seminole Cert Petition

Questions presented:

(1) Is a Native American tribe sovereignly immune from a civil suit for damages caused by the off-reservation violations by its police officers of the “place of religious worship” provisions of the Freedom of Access To Clinic Entrances Act of 1994, 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2) (“the Access Act”)?

(2) Are the “place of religious worship” and civil remedies provisions of the Access Act, as applied to a congregational leadership dispute, unenforceable because those provisions violate the Establishment of Religion and Free Exercise of Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution?

Lower court materials here.

Update:

Seminole BIO

Materials in Suit against Caesars [Rincon Band]

December 2, 2020ilpc

Here are the materials so far in Pilant v. Caesars Entertainment Services Inc. (S.D. Cal.):

1 Notice of Removal

1-5 Complaint

3-1 Motion to Dismiss

4 Response

5 Reply

6 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This matter is before the Court on a motion by specially appearing Defendants Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC (“CES”) and Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (“CEI”) to dismiss the complaint for failure to join an indispensable party and for lack of personal jurisdiction. The motion has been fully briefed, and the Courtdeems it suitable for submission without oral argument. As discussed below, the motion to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party is denied and the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted in part and denied in part.