tribal sovereign immunity

Washington COA Decision Involving Tribal Immunity from State Criminal Subpoenas

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in State v. Youde:

Washington COA Opinion

An excerpt:

This case involves a prosecution for delivery of marijuana. The investigating agency was the police department of the Tulalip Tribes. The Tribes asserted sovereign immunity in response to a defense subpoena for information the Tribes deemed immaterial. Recognizing that a sovereign entity is not subject to compulsory process, the superior court quashed the subpoena. The court then granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the prosecution under CrR 8.3(b). The State appeals the dismissal. We hold the court abused its discretion by dismissing the case without first determining whether the subpoenaed information was material. Because the record does not support a finding of materiality, we reverse the order of dismissal.

Briefs are here:

Tribal Court Denies Injunction in Nooksack Disenrollee Challenge

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials available in Lomeli v. Kelly (Nooksack Tribal Court):

Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Defendants Response Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for T

Reply in Support of Plaintiffs Emergency Motion for TRO

Opening Ninth Circuit Briefs in Yakama-State of Washington Tax Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs in Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Reservation v. State of Washington:

Yakama Opening Brief

Washington Answer Brief

Reply Brief to come

Lower court materials here and here. Tribal court materials here.

OSG Recommends Denial of Michigan’s Cert Petition in Vanderbilt Casino Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the brief:

12-515 Michigan v Bay Mills

Miller v Wright Cert Opposition Brief

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Miller v Wright Cert Opp

The petition is here. No chance for a grant. I wouldn’t have even filed an opposition….

State Law Employment Discrimination Suit against Harrah’s Rincon Casino & Resort Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Tavares v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (S.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

Harrah’s Motion to Dismiss

Arizona COA Decides ISDEAA Immunity Case in Favor of Tribal Interests

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is today’s opinion in Shirk v. Lancaster:

CV 12-0131

An excerpt:

Loren Shirk seeks damages for allegedly negligent conduct by two Gila River Indian Community (“GRIC”) police officers. Because we conclude the trial court erred in granting Shirk’s motion to set aside the prior final judgment in favor of the officers, we reverse.

Briefs are here. Lower court materials here. Materials in related case against City of Chandler here. Here are the materials in the federal case dismissing a Federal Tort Claims Act action.

Second Circuit Briefs in Cayuga Property Tax Dispute with Seneca County

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs in Cayuga Indian Nation v. Seneca County:

Seneca County Opening Brief

Cayuga Indian Nation Answer Brief

Seneca County Reply

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Allows Leave to Amend Civil Rights Complaint against Salt River Police re: Medicinal Marijuana Confiscation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in Phillips v. Salt River Police Dep’t (D. Ariz.):

DCT Order

Phillips Complaint

Denver District Court Rejects Western Sky Financial’s Assertion of Tribal Immunity (and Issues Sanctions for Asserting It)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in State ex rel. Suthers v. Western Sky Financial LLC:

Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment

An excerpt:

Accordingly, because Defendants’ business activities are conducted off-reservation and because Defendants solicit and advertise their business in Colorado and have, in fact, entered into loan agreements with Colorado citizens, Defendants are not entitled to tribal immunity or federal preemption. Rather, based on the undisputed facts before the Court, the Court concludes that Defendants are subject to the Code’s previsions and are thereby liable for any violation thereof. Specifically, because Western Sky is not, and has never been, licensed as a supervised lender, and because unlicensed lenders are not authorized to charge a finance charge on supervised loans, Defendants’ liability for restitution to consumers of all finance charges, including penalties, on all unlicensed loans made or collected with respect to Colorado citizens, is established as a matter of law.

And, on the sanctions:

Accordingly, because Defendants tribal immunity and federal preemption arguments lack substantial justification, the State is entitled to recover its attorney’s fees expended in replying to Defendants Response insofar as the State can establish the reasonable fees incurred in addressing Defendants’ tribal immunity and preemption arguments.