tribal sovereign immunity – Page 61

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to Pala Disenrollments

March 17, 2015March 17, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the unpublished opinion in Allen v. Smith:

031.1 – Memorandum Disposition(83952089_1)

Excerpt:

This relief sought by the Appellants clearly operates against the Tribe. The
requested relief would prevent the Tribe from disenrolling the Appellants and
compel it to reinstate their membership and tribal benefits. Even the request for
compensatory and punitive damages (to be paid by the Appellees, not the Tribe)
would interfere with the Tribe’s public administration, because the monetary
damages are predicated on this court’s determination that the disenrollment of the Appellants was improper. Thus, we conclude that Appellants’ suit should be
construed as a suit against the Tribe itself.

Briefs and lower court materials here.

Oklahoma Appellate Court Finds Apache Tribe Waived Immunity in Suit to Collect Arbitration Award

March 12, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Wells Fargo Band NA v. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma:

Opinion

An excerpt:

This case arises from Wells Fargo Bank’s efforts to collect the balance of a $4,365,000 loan to the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma. The Tribe appeals various rulings of the district court in these consolidated appeals.1 Principally, the Tribe challenges the district court’s Judgment confirming an arbitration award in favor of the Bank, arguing it did not waive sovereign immunity or consent to be sued in Oklahoma district court. We find that there was a valid and express waiver of the Tribe’s sovereign immunity, that the Tribe’s agreement to arbitrate this dispute with the Bank is enforceable and that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority in awarding the Bank the unpaid balance of its loan. Therefore, the district court’s Judgment confirming that portion of the arbitration award is affirmed as are the subsequent orders issued in aid of the Bank’s effort to collect its Judgment

Otoe-Missouria Tribal Chairman Brings Civil Rights Action against Connecticut Dept. of Banking

March 10, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Shotton v. Pitkin (W.D. Okla.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

Plaintiff brings this action as a result of unlawful enforcement actions taken by Defendants against Plaintiff and Defendants’ entry of a state administrative order imposing a civil penalty of $700,000 against Plaintiff in his individual capacity and unlawfully restraining his conduct without due process of law and in violation of his individual right to immunity as a tribal official.

Our post on a related suit in Connecticut Superior Court action is here.

Wisconsin COA Affirms Immunity of Tribal Enterprise from Employment Claim

March 10, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Harris v. Lake of the Torches Resort & Casino (Wis. App.):

2015.03.10 – Court of Appeals Opinion – Harris Appeal II

Briefs are here.

Diné CARE Prevails in NEPA Challenge to Navajo Mine Expansion

March 10, 2015March 10, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Diné Citizens against Ruining Our Environment v. United States Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (D. Colo.):

48 Diné CARE Opening Brief

53 OSMRE Response

54 BHP Navajo Response

55 Diné CARE Reply

79 DCT Order

News coverage here.

Posts on prior motion to dismiss and motion to intervene.

Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals Affirms Tribal Immunity

March 6, 2015March 12, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the opinions in First Bank and Trust v. Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes:

110909

Here are the briefs:

2-13-13 Motion for Leave to Supplement the Appeal Record

10-2-13 Special Appearance Joint Notice of Supplemental Authority

10-12-12 Joint Application to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma to Stay Enforcement of Judgment

10-30-12 Special Appearance, Joint Brief-in-Chief of the Tribes and the Executive Branch

11-21-12 First Bank and Trust Company’s Answer Brief and Brief-in-Chief on Counter-Appeal

12-7-12 Special Appearance, Joint Reply Brief and Answer Brief to Brief-in-Chief on Counter-Appeal

12-13-12 Joint Motion to Supplement the Record on Appeal

12-19-12 First Bank and Trust Company’s Response in Opposition to Joint Motion to Supplement Record on Appeal

12-19-12 First Bank and Trust Company’s Waiver of Right to File Reply Brief

12-24-13 Special Appearance Notice of Supplemental Authority

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Quinault Lease under Rule 19, Sovereign Immunity

March 6, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Comenout v. Whitener (W.D. Wash.):

25 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

The Nation is an indispensible party under Rule 19(b). As discussed above, a judgment in Comenout’s favor would prejudice the Nation’s contractual rights under the lease. Comenout also cannot be accorded complete relief in the Nation’s absence because any injunction would not be binding on the Nation. Further, the relief sought by Comenout cannot be shaped to lessen the potential prejudice to either Comenout or the Nation. Partial relief is also inadequate, because the Nation could still attempt to enforce its rights to use the property for commercial purposes as the lessee.

Federal Court Applies Sherrill Defenses, Tribal Immunity to Dismiss Wolfchild Statutory Land Claims

March 6, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the order in Wolfchild v. Redwood County (D. Minn.):

196 DCT Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

An excerpt:

The Court finds no basis upon which to distinguish this case from those asserted in Sherrill or Stockbridge. It is clear that Plaintiffs’ claims flow from the 1863 Act. It is also clear that the land at issue here was sold to third parties no later than 1895. See Wolfchild IX, 731 F.3d at 1293. Plaintiffs’ claims are thus like those described in Stockbridge: “Indian land claims asserted generations after an alleged dispossession that are inherently disruptive of state and local governance and the settled expectations of current landowners and are subject to dismissal on the basis of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility.” Id. 756 F.3d at 165.

There is no language in Sherrill or Stockbridge that would limit the holdings of those decisions to claims based on aboriginal title.

Based on the particular characteristics and history of the claims at issue here, the Court finds that Plaintiffs’ claims are equitably barred. Application of the equitable bar set forth inSherrill does not require a balancing of equities between the parties. Instead, the equitable bar focuses on Plaintiffs’ delay in seeking relief, and the disruption that would result to settled and justified expectations regarding land ownership. Sherrill, 544 U.S. at 216‐17, 221(finding that “the Oneidasʹ long delay in seeking equitable relief against New York or its local units, and developments in the city of Sherrill spanning several generations, evoke the doctrines of laches, acquiescence, and impossibility, and render inequitable the piecemeal shift in governance this suit seeks unilaterally to initiate”).

Briefs are here.

Massachusetts Gaming Claims against Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Survive Motions to Dismiss; Counterclaims Do, Too

March 2, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the updated materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):

65 Massachusetts Opposition to Rule 19 Motion

67 Aquinnah-Gay Head Community Opposition to 11th Amendment Motion to Dismiss

71 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Reply in Support of Rule 19 Motion

72 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss on Immunity Grounds

77 Massachusetts Motion to Dismiss

86 Massachusetts Officials Motion to Dismiss

87 Wampanoag Tribe Opposition to Massachusetts Immunity Motion

88 Massachusetts Reply

95 DCT Order Denying Motions to Dismiss

An excerpt:

This lawsuit involves a dispute between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a federally recognized Indian tribe concerning regulatory jurisdiction over civil gaming on Indian lands on Martha’s Vineyard. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and related entities have taken steps to commence commercial gaming operations on tribal lands without a license from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth contends that operating gaming facilities without such a license would violate a 1983 settlement agreement that subjects the lands in question to state civil and criminal jurisdiction (and thus subjects them to state laws regulating gaming). Count 1 of the complaint alleges breach of contract, and Count 2 seeks a declaratory judgment.

The Commonwealth filed suit in state court on December 2, 2013. On December 30, 2013, the Tribe removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. On August 6, 2014, the Court granted motions to intervene by the Town of Aquinnah and the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association (“AGHCA”). The Tribe has moved to dismiss the AGHCA complaint on the basis of sovereign immunity and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; it has further moved to dismiss all three complaints (with leave to amend) for failure to join the United States as a required party.

On October 24, 2014, the Tribe filed an amended answer that included a counterclaim against the Commonwealth and counterclaims against three third-party defendants (all of whom are officials of the Commonwealth). Plaintiff and third-party defendants have moved to dismiss the counterclaims on the grounds of sovereign immunity (as to the counterclaims against the Commonwealth) and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

For the reasons stated below, the motions of the Tribe will be denied and the motion of counterclaim-defendants will be granted in part and denied in part.

We posted motions to dismiss here. Materials on the state court removal and remand motions here. Complaint here.