Here are the materials in State of Alabama v. 50 Serialized JLM Games (S.D. Ala.):
23 Alabama Response to Motion to Dismiss
31 MOWA Amended Notice of Removal to Federal Court
tribal sovereign immunity
Louisiana Appellate Briefs in Meyer & Assocs. v. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana II
Here:
The report of the decision in Meyer & Assocs. v. Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana I is here:
Oklahoma v. Hobia Cert Petition
Here:
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (as filed)
Question presented:
Does Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S.Ct. 2024 (2014), require the dismissal of a State’s suit to prevent tribal officers from conducting gaming that would be unlawful under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and a state-tribal compact when
• the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief has been brought against tribal officials – not the tribe;• the gaming will occur in Indian country, on the land of another tribe; and
• the state-tribal compact’s arbitration provision does not require arbitration before filing suit?
Lower court materials here.
First Circuit Briefs in Luckerman v. Narragansett Tribe
Quinault Moves to Dismiss Claims against Estate of Edward Comenout; Counterclaims Dismissed, Too
Here are the materials in Quinault Indian Nation v. Comenout (W.D. Wash.):
Ninth Circuit Materials in Carsten v. Nevada Inter-Tribal Council — FMLA Claims
Suit for Injunctive Relief against Blackfeet Elected Officials over Utility MOA Dispute May Proceed
Here are the materials in Town of Browning v. Sharp (D. Mont.):
115 Reply in Support of 12b7 Motion
144 Objection to Magistrate Report
An excerpt:
Defendants and Plaintiff have not objected to Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations on any other grounds. The Court finds no clear error in Judge Johnston’s Findings and Recommendations, and adopts them in full. A plaitiff may seek only prospective, injunctive relief under the doctrine of Ex Parte Young. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vaughn, 509 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir.2007). Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, exemplary damages, treble damages, and costs and attorney fees for counts 2–5. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. Dismissal of counts 2–5 is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff seeks prospective, injunctive relief in count 1. Defendants have failed to demonstrate that Plaintiff has not stated a claim for which relief can be granted in count 1.
Sault Tribe Motion to Dismiss Michigan Gaming Suit
Here are the new materials in the case captioned State of Michigan v. Payment (W.D. Mich.):
2015-03-20 Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
2015-03-20 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
71 Michigan Response to Motion to Dismiss
The state’s amended complaint is here.
Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to Pala Disenrollments
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
Here is the opinion in Wells Fargo Band NA v. Apache Tribe of Oklahoma:
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
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.