Here:
Lower court materials here.
tribal sovereign immunity
Update in WD and the Canyon v. Hual’Bay Ba:J Enterprises Inc.
Here are the new materials in WD and the Canyon v. Hual’Bay Ba:J Enterprises Inc. c(Hualalpai Tribal Court):
Federal Court Orders Guidiville Rancheria and Casino Development Partner to Pay $1.9M in Attorney Fees to City of Richmond
Here are the materials in Guidiville Rancheria v. United States (N.D. Cal.):
113 City of Richmond Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
212 DCT Order Granting Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
255 City of Richmond Motion for Atty Fees
289 DCT Order Granting Motion for Atty Fees
The tribe has appealed to the Ninth Circuit on the merits of the claim and has already filed their opening brief:
Tribal Immunity Does Not Foreclose Deposition of Attorney in Grand Canyon Skywalk Dispute
Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. Cieslak (D. Nev.) (No. 15-1189):
23 Reply in Support of Motion to Quash
[Response sealed]
Another Update in Cosentino v. Fuller Depublication Request
Here:
Defendants’ Request for Depublication
Oppo to Viejas Band’s Depub Request
Opposition to Request of Defendants to Depublish
Opposition to Request of Group of 13
Prior depublication-related posts here and here.
Cal. COA opinion here.
Oklahoma v. Hobia Cert Stage Briefing Complete
Additional Request to Depublish Cosentino v. Fuller
Here (from the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians):
Request for Depublication 07 14 15
Prior request for depublication here.
California Tribes Seeking Depublication of Cosentino v. Fuller
Here is the request to the California Supreme Court for depublication of Cosentino v. Fuller (Cal. Ct. App.) submitted by thirteen California Indian tribes:
Cosentino Request for Depublication – File Endorsed
Here’s an excerpt:
Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff’s suit rests entirely on the quintessentially sovereign action of the Pechanga Gaming Commission: revocation of Plaintiff’s gaming license. Opinion, pp. 6-7. That action cannot be effected by Gaming Commissioners in their personal capacity — only a properly constituted Gaming Commission can revoke a gaming license. Indeed, Congress has recognized that regulation of gaming on tribal lands is central to tribal self-governance. 25 U.S.C. § 2701.
Even though it was “the official action of the [Tribe], following [Defendants’] votes, that caused [Plaintiff]’s alleged injury” (Imperial Granite, 940 F.2d at 1271), the Opinion appears to condition an officer’s immunity on the additional showing that the sovereign’s action fell within its authority and was benignly motivated. Specifically, the Opinion evaluated whether the Tribe’s Commission acted with a retaliatory motive and whether it “revoked [Plaintiff’s] license on a ground identified in the IGRA, the Tribal-State Compact, or the Pechanga Ordinance.” Opinion, pp. 16-17. But where, as here, a plaintiff challenges official action of the tribe, the “tribe’s immunity is not defeated by an allegation that it acted beyond its powers.” Imperial Granite Co., 940 F.2d at 1271. The Opinion invites courts and litigants to disregard this firmly established protection of sovereign action under the guise of a “masked official capacity suit[].” Pistor, 2015 WL 3953448, at *5.
Here are previous TurtleTalk posts on this matter:
Hobia Cert Opposition Brief
Indian Grazing Complaint against Tribes and US Dismissed
Here are the materials in South Fork Livestock Partnership v. United States (D. Nev.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.