tribal sovereign immunity – Page 51

SCOTUS Petition for Cert in Lewis v. Clarke

June 17, 2016June 17, 2016Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

Download Petition for Writ of Certiorari (PDF)

Link to briefs previously posted here.

Question Presented: Whether the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe bars individual-capacity damages actions against tribal employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment.

New Mexico SCT Affirms Tribal Immunity from Property Claims (UPDATED with briefs)

June 17, 2016June 20, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Hamaatsa Inc. v. Pueblo of San Felipe.

An excerpt:

The Pueblo of San Felipe (Pueblo) appeals from an opinion of the New Mexico Court of Appeals declining to extend the Pueblo, an Indian tribe, immunity from suit. Because it is settled federal law that sovereign Indian tribes enjoy immunity from suit in state and federal court—absent waiver or abrogation by Congress—we reverse the Court of Appeals with instructions for the district court to dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Lower court decision here.

We would love to post the briefs in this case. Please send along.

Briefs:

Hamaatsa Answer Brief to Tribal Amici

Hamaatsa Answer Brief

Response Brief of Amicus Curiae NMLTA

SF Brief in Chief

SF Reply Brief

SF Reply to NMLTA Amicus Brief

Tribal Amicus Brief

Florida Appellate Court Affirms Tribal Corporation’s Immunity from Suit

June 16, 2016June 16, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in MMG LLC v. Seminole Tribe of Florida Inc.

An excerpt:

MMMG, LLC and Mobile Mike Promotions, Inc. appeal the involuntary dismissal of their complaint against a federal tribal corporation affiliated with the Seminole Tribe. We affirm the dismissal because the tribal corporation enjoyed sovereign immunity from suit, which was not effectively waived according to the procedure required in the corporation’s charter and bylaws.

Given the long history of exploitation of Native Americans, Congress has enacted statutes designed to protect tribes and tribal corporations. These statutes have been construed by federal and Florida courts as placing the onus on the non-tribal party to ensure that any waiver of sovereign immunity be executed in strict compliance with applicable tribal operating documents; common law doctrines such as apparent authority do not override the protection provided by federal law.

Briefs in the case: MMMG’s initial brief, Seminole’s answer, and MMMG’s reply.

Second Circuit Materials in Sun v. Mashantucket

June 15, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs in Sun v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise:

Sun Opening Brief

Pequot Answer Brief

Robinson Answer Brief

Reply TK

Lower court materials here.

Briefs in Findleton v. Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians (Immunity Waiver Dispute)

June 13, 2016July 22, 2020Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Findleton Supplemental Brief

Tribe Supplemental Brief

Remaining CERCLA Claims against Laguna Dismissed

May 24, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Atlantic Richfield Co. v. United States (D. N.M.):

80 LCC Motion for Reconsideration

83 Opposition

91 LCC Reply

93 DCT Order

Federal Court Allows Amended Suit against Seneca Holdings in Post-Hurricane Sandy Construction Dispute

May 23, 2016May 23, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Private Solutions Inc v. SCMC LLC (D. N.J.):

53-1 Plaintiff Motion to Amend complaint

55 Opposition

58 Reply

63 DCT Order

An excerpt:

As Breakthrough makes clear, determining whether an economic entity such as Seneca Holdings benefits from tribal sovereign immunity requires a fact-intensive inquiry. The Court recognizes that Seneca Holdings has produced its Second Amended Charter, which discusses the economic entity’s formation, purpose, structure, and relationship to the Seneca Nation. [Docket Entry No. 55-1]. The Charter makes clear that Seneca Holdings was organized under tribal law and was created for the purpose of facilitating the Tribe’s economic interests. The Charter is highly probative of several of the Breakthrough factors; however, it is not enough to definitively establish that Seneca Holdings shares tribal sovereign immunity with the Seneca Nation of Indians. As such, more discovery is required to appropriately consider the issue. Consequently, at this juncture, Seneca Holdings purported tribal sovereign immunity does not render PSI’s proposed amendments futile.