tribal sovereign immunity

Matt seeks documents in the possession of the Fort Belknap Community Council. (Doc. 26-1 at 2.) In order to satisfy Matt’s request, Council would be required to take affirmative action to produce tribal documents. (Doc. 37 at 3.) If the Court granted Matt’s request the judgment would “interfere with public administration” of the tribe and would “compel [the sovereign] to act.” Maxwell, 708 F.3d at 1087-90. The recovery sought in this case would operate against the tribe. Matt should not be allowed to “circumvent tribal immunity” by addressing the Subpoena Duces Tecum to Mark Azure instead of to the tribe.

54 Motion to Compel

55 DCT Order

An excerpt:

The Council entered into an ISDEAA contract for the maintenance of the roads on Matt’s property. The Council and its tribal members should be deemed part of the BIA and subject to the FTCA. The Council and its tribal members should be subject to discovery related to the construction and maintenance of the roads covered by the ISDEAA contract.

Federal Court Quashes Subpoena on Tribal Sovereign Immunity Grounds

February 5, 2016February 5, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank (N.D. Okla.):

3 Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians Motion to Quash

7 Response

9 Reply

15 DCT Order

Arizona Court of Appeals Affirms Immunity of Tribal Police for Off-Reservation Actions

January 22, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Brown v. Officer K. Robertson #Y234 (Ariz. Ct. App.):

CV 14-0812

Selected Materials in Commonwealth of Penn. v. Think Finance LLC

January 19, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

67-1 Think Finance Motion to Dismiss Rule 19

68-1 Think Motion to Dismiss Rule 12 and 17

70-1 Think Motion to Dismiss

73 Rees Motion to Dismiss

75 Commonwealth Opposition

93 DCT Order

Excerpts:

In both Hotleva and Chehalis, the actions of the non-party would preclude the relief sought. In contrast, here the relief sought by the Plaintiffs does not require the non-party tribes to do or refrain from doing anything. For example, the Plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the money earned by the Defendants only, not the money the tribes have earned, through the alleged scheme. FAC p. 40. The Plaintiff is not seeking a declaration that the contracts themselves are illegal, but rather a declaration that the Defendants’ conduct violates a number of state and federal laws.FAC p. 39. The Chippewa Cree were engaged in consumer lending prior to their partnership with Think Finance and, since the tribes are not bound by the outcome of this case, they would be permitted to continue that business. The tribes continuing their business (without the services of the Defendants) would in no way limit the relief the Plaintiffs seek. See Dillon v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 16 F.Supp.3d 605, 615 (M.D.N.C. 2014) (“[J]udgment…will not prohibit the lenders from lending money or from relying on other mechanisms to collect on their loans.”). The relief the OAG seeks is thus not “hollow.” The tribes are not required underRule 19(a)(1)(a).