tribal sovereign immunity – Page 46

Florida COA Affirms Tribal Immunity Defense in Miccosukee Tribe v. Lewis & Tein

August 9, 2017September 7, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

“There are reasons to doubt the wisdom of perpetuating the doctrine” of tribal immunity. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 758 (1998). It “can harm those who are unaware that they are dealing with a tribe, who do not know of tribal immunity, or who have no choice in the matter, as in the case of tort victims.” Id. No one knows this more than Guy Lewis and Michael Tein. The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, according to Lewis and Tein’s complaint, spent five years filing false lawsuits, suborning perjury, and obstructing justice, in an effort to damage the attorneys’ finances, reputations, and law firm. Whatever its wisdom, tribal immunity endures, and Indian tribes are not subject to the civil jurisdiction of our courts absent a clear, explicit, and unmistakable waiver of tribal sovereign immunity or a congressional abrogation of that immunity. Because neither exception to tribal immunity has been established in this case, we reverse the trial court’s denial of the Miccosukee Tribe’s motion to dismiss.

UPDATE (9/7/17):

Federal Court Dismisses Gaming Contract Breach against Picayune Rancheria

July 31, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Osceola Blackwood Ivory Gaming Group LLC v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (E.D. Cal.):

Tenth Circuit Denies Utility/Pipeline Company En Banc Petition; Cert Petition Likely; Trump Admin. May Change Position on Case to Appease Pipeline Company

July 27, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Public Service Company of New Mexico v. Barboan:

PSCNM En Banc Petition

Transwestern Pipeline Company Amicus Brief

CA10 Order on En Banc Review

PSCNM Motion for Stay

Prior posts here.

Federal Court Dismisses Slip and Fall Action against Fort Mojave Indian Tribe’s Casino Operations

July 18, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Ireson v. AVI Casino Enterprises (D. Nev.):

Ninth Circuit Remands False Claims Act Matter

July 10, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in United States ex rel. Cain v. Salish Kootenai College.

Materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Casino Patron Effort to Overrule Tribal Tort Claims Act Interpretation

July 7, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Wilson v. Umpqua Indian Development Corporation (D. Or.):

1 Complaint

1-7 Tribal Court Decision

15 Motion to Dismiss

Washington COA Dismisses Two Challenges to Swinomish Civil Forfeiture under Rule 19

June 27, 2017June 27, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Washington v. Director of the Dept. of Licensing.

An excerpt:

After losing her vehicle to the Swinomish Tribe in civil forfeiture, Washington filed this suit against the Department of Licensing and unnamed Swinomish police officers. The trial court dismissed the case under CR 19 for failure to join an indispensable party: the Tribe. We affirm.

Here are the briefs:

And here is the unpublished opinion in Scott v. Doe.

Briefs:

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Tort Claim against Rocky Boy’s

June 23, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Eagleman v. Rocky Boy’s Chippewa-Cree Business Committee or Council.

Briefs here.

Lower court materials here.

Oral argument video here.

Georgia Appellate Court Vacates Arbitration Award against Guidiville Band of the Pomo Indians

June 20, 2017June 20, 2017Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Churchill Financial Management Corp. v. ClearNexus Inc. (Ga. Ct. App.):

Ga Ct App Opinion

An excerpt:

Most courts that have addressed this issue have determined that tribal sovereign immunity extends to entities known as chartered tribal corporations when they are “arms of the tribe.” Whether a corporation is an “arm of the tribe” protected by tribal sovereign immunity generally is determined based on a consideration of tribal involvement in the creation and control of the entity, intent to clothe the entity with immunity, and whether the entity serves tribal sovereign interests such as economic development.

Although neither the arbitrator nor the superior court engaged in an analysis based on any factors to determine whether Churchill is an arm of the Tribe, ClearNexus has conceded that Churchill is an arm of the Tribe. Additionally, Churchill’s articles of incorporation stated that “[t]he Corporation shall be wholly owned by the Tribe for the benefit of the Tribe and its members” and is clothed with the immunity of the Tribe. Therefore, we need not adopt a particular approach to determine this issue at this time, and we need not remand in order for the superior court to make this determination.