tribal sovereign immunity – Page 69

Appellants contend that defendants-respondents Nancy Ayala, Karen Wynn, Charles Sargosa, and Tracy Brechbuehl (the Ayala faction or the individual Ayala defendants) do not enjoy sovereign immunity because their actions were illegal and not performed in an official capacity. However, to decide whether the Ayala faction’s actions were illegal, a court would have to determine whether the Ayala faction was the legitimate Tribal Council; this it may not do (see Sac & Fox, 340 F3d at 767).

Briefs:

Wells Fargo Brief

Chukchansi Brief (Marsten)

Chukchansi Brief (Rosette)

Lower court materials here, here, and here.

Florida Appellate Court Vacates $4.1M Judgment against Miccosukee Tribe

July 3, 2014July 3, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Miccosukee Tribe v. Bermudez (Fla. App.):

3D13-2153

We posted on two prior Florida appellate opinions related to this matter (there are apparently ten overall) here and here.

H/T Pechanga.

Federal Court Denies TRO in Begay v. Begay

July 3, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

28 NNOGC-Begay-DKT-0028-000 ME Order Denying TRO

Prior posts here and here.

Second Circuit En banc Petition by Stockbridge-Munsee Community

June 30, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

6-30-14 Petition for Rehearing En Banc

An excerpt:

The panel decision conflicts with the May 19, 2014 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Petrella v.Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 132; 188 L.Ed.2d 979 (2014) (Petrella). Petrella held that courts may not override Congress’ judgment and apply equitable defenses to summarily dispose of claims at law filed within a statute of limitations established by Congress. The panel’s Per Curiam decision ruled that Plaintiff-Appellant Stockbridge-Munsee Community’s (Stockbridge) damages claims, which were filed within the congressionally established limitations period, are barred by the Sherrill equitable defense. Stockbridge-Munsee Cmty. v. New York; Slip Op. at 8, 2014 WL 2782191 (2d Cir. June 20, 2014) (Slip Opinion attached as Appendix). The panel’s failure to follow Petrella warrants en banc review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 35.

Panel materials here.