tribal sovereign immunity – Page 24

(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.

Federal Court Holds Tribal Employee Not Covered by Kickapoo Tribe’s Insurance Policy in Auto Accident

December 1, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Dinger v. Wishenko (N.D. Ill.):

1-1 Garnishment Petition

52 Amended Counterclaim

58 Insurance Co. Motion for Summary Judgment

70 Wishenko Response

70-2 Order re Partial Settlement of Claim

74 Wishenko Motion for Summary Judgment

88 Insurance Co. Response

91 Wishenko Reply in Support of 74

108 DCT Order

Materials in the related Federal Tort Claims Act case, Dinger v. United States (D. Kan.):

1 FTCA Claim [docket no. 70-1 in N.D. Ill. case]

9 US Motion to Dismiss

10 Opposition

14 Reply

16 DCT Order

Second Circuit Affirms Oneida Victory in Property Dispute

November 25, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Oneida Indian Nation v. Phillips.

Here are the briefs:

Phillips Brief

Oneida Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss Copyright Infringement Action against Tribal Official

November 20, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Marlon Blackwell Architects PA v. HBG Design Inc. (E.D. Ark.):

1 Complaint

9 HBG Motion to Dismiss

11 Berrey Motion to Dismiss

13 Saracen Development Motion to Dismiss

17 Response

33 DCT Order

Federal Court Finds Factual Misrepresentations Made to Fourth Circuit in Williams v. Big Picture Loans LLC

November 20, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Williams v. Big Picture Loans LLC (E.D. Va.) (this case is on remand from the Fourth Circuit):

599 DCT Order

601 DCT Order

613 Martorello Statement of Position

624 Williams Response to 613

784 Williams Statement of Position

910 Williams Supplemental Memorandum

944 DCT Order

Excerpts: Continue reading →

Oklahoma SCT Decides Comanche Nation of Oklahoma ex rel. Comanche Nation Tourism Center v. Coffey

November 19, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion. From the syllabus:

Plaintiff/Appellant Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, a federally recognized Indian Tribe, ex rel. Comanche Nation Tourism Center, filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that Defendant/Appellant Wallace Coffey was indebted to it for the amount of the outstanding balance on an open account. The trial court granted Coffey’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the case with prejudice. Thereafter, Coffey filed an application for prevailing party attorney fees pursuant to 12 O.S.2011 § 936. The trial court denied Coffey’s request for attorney fees, finding he was not the prevailing party because he had not prevailed on the merits of the action. Coffey appealed the order denying attorney fees, and this Court retained the appeal. We hold a defendant is not a “prevailing party” within the meaning of 12 O.S. § 936 when the court dismisses the action with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court’s order denying Coffey’s motion for attorney fees is affirmed.

Here are pdfs of the separate opinions:

Majority Opinion

Kauger DIssent

Combs Dissent

And the lone pleading I could locate:

Petition in Error