Tenth Circuit Denies En Banc Petition in Enable Oklahoma Intrastate Transmission LLC v. A 25 Foot Wide Easement

Here are the materials:

En Banc petition

Unopposed Motion for Atty Fees

Order Denying En Banc Petition

Order Granting Atty Fees

Other posts here.

Connecticut Court Holds Tribal Business is Immune from State Dept. of Banking Authority

Here are the materials in Great Plains Lending LLC v. State of Connecticut Dept. of Banking (Conn. Super.):

Appeal

Amended Complaint

Department’s Motion to Dismiss

Great Plains Objection to MTD

Superior Ct Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Great Plains Brief on the Merits

Department’s Brief on the Merits

Great Plains Reply

Superior Ct Order Vacating Commissioner Order

Cayuga Indian Nation Prevails in Tax Immunity Dispute with Seneca County

Here are the materials in the long-running Cayuga Indian Nation v. Seneca County (W.D. N.Y.):

58 Cayuga Motion for Summary Judgment

60-5 Seneca County MSJ

62 Cayuga Reply

67 Seneca County Reply

76 DCT Order

Prior posts here.

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Caddo Nation of Oklahoma v. Wichita and Affiliated Tribes II

Here:

Appellant Brief

Response Brief

Reply

Case tag here.

Seventh Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Employment Action against Oneida Housing

Here are the materials in Delebreau v. Danforth:

Opinion

Opening Brief

Response Brief

Reply

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Yerington Paiute Mine Torts Case

Here are the materials in BP America v. Yerington Paiute Tribe (D. Nev.):

37 Amended Complaint

38 Amended Motion for PI

41 Tribal Judge MTD

42 Tribal Judge Response to 38

51 Tribe MTD

52 Tribe Response to 38

53-1 Tribal Court MTD

54 Tribal Court Reponse to 38

59 Plaintiffs Consolidated Response

61 Reply in Support of 38

62 Reply in Support of 41

63 Tribal Court Reply in Support of 53

64 Tribe Reply in Support of 51

78 DCT Order Dismissing 37

80 Plaintiff Motion to Amend Judgment

82 Tribal Judge Response to 80

85 Tribe Response to 80

88 Reply in Support of 80

91 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Thanksgiving Update of Williams & Cochrane v. Quechan & Rosette Litigation [updated June 5, 2019]

Here are updated materials in Williams & Cochrane LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation (S.D. Cal.):

138-1 W&C Motion to Dismiss Quechan Counterclaims [94]

148 W&C Response to Quechan MTD [115]

150 W&C Opposition to Rosette Motion to Strike [109]

151 W&C Opposition to Rosette MTD [110]

161 Rosette Reply in Support of 109

162 Quechan Reply in Support of 115

164 Quechan Response to 138

167 W&C Reply in Support of 94

172 DCT Order

Prior posts here.

UPDATE:

173 DCT Order Denying 138

174 Third Amended Complaint

184 Quechan Motion to Strike

185-1 Rosette Motion to Strike

190 W&C Response to Quechan

193 W&C Response to Rosette

194 Quechan Reply

198 Rosette Reply

207-1 W&C Motion for Summary Judgment

Federal Court Dismisses Counterclaim to Tribal Land Claim

Here are the materials in Oneida Indian Nation v. Phillips (N.D. N.Y.):

1-complaint4.pdf

17-answer-counterclaim.pdf

24-2-tribe-motion-to-dismiss-counterclaim.pdf

27-response.pdf

28-reply.pdf

30-dct-order1.pdf

Student Scholarship on the Allergan/Mohawk Case

Seth W. R. Brickey has published “Rent-A-Tribe: Using Tribal Immunity to Shield Patents from Administrative Review” in the Washington Law Review.

Here is the abstract:

 In 2017, Allergan Pharmaceuticals entered into an agreement with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe (SRMT). Allergan agreed to assign several patents to SRMT and to pay an initial sum of $13.75 million and annual royalties of approximately $15 million. SRMT, in exchange, licensed the rights to use the patents back to Allergan and agreed not to  waive its tribal immunity in any administrative proceeding challenging the patents. Two outcomes were expected as a result of this Allergan-Mohawk agreement. First, Allergan would retain the rights to manufacture and market a highly profitable drug while insulating the underlying patents from an unforgiving administrative inter partes review (IPR). Second, SRMT would embark on a new business venture of collecting and relicensing patents from third parties, effectively “renting out” its sovereign immunity. The response from lawmakers, the judiciary, the executive branch, and the public at large was acrimonious. The agreement was branded in public forums as a “sham” and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board held the patents assigned to SRMT were not shielded by tribal immunity. This Comment argues the Allergan-Mohawk agreement is a legally effective means of avoiding IPR. Absent an express waiver of tribal immunity by Congress or the tribe itself, a tribe may not be subject to a private claim. This rule extends to IPR proceedings which closely parallel private suits. Therefore, contracts like the Allergan-Mohawk agreement effectively shield patents from IPR.

Federal Court Dismisses Workers’ Comp Claim against Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority

Here are the materials in Luiz v. Northern Circle Indian Housing Authority (N.D. Cal.):

1 Habeas Petition

8 Motion to Dismiss

12 Response

14 Reply

16 DCT Order