Here are the materials in Tonasket v. Sargent:
Lower court materials here.
The Ninth Circuit recently decided a related appeal here.
tribal sovereign immunity
Materials in Cesar Caballero’s Counterclaims against Shingle Springs Miwok
Moapa Drops Tribal Court Suit against Wells Fargo; Agrees to Mediation (Updated 2/25/13)
Here is the tribe’s press release:
MOAPA DISMISSES TRIBAL COURT ACTION
Moapa, NV –The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians today announced that it and Wells Fargo Financial Advisors LLC had agreed to submit to mediation certain issues between the parties, and that the Band had caused dismissal of an action against Wells Fargo Financial Advisors commenced in the Tribe’s tribal court.
Tribal Chairman William Anderson commented that “The Tribe will always defend its inherent sovereign rights. However, the Tribe also observes its valid agreements, including valid waivers of its sovereign immunity. Further, the Band strives to be commercially responsible in its contractual relationships. We believe that the Band’s voluntary submission of the issues to mediation and dismissal of the tribal court action reflect these principles. We hope that through good faith mediation the parties will mutually resolve the issues.”
About the Moapa Band of Paiutes
The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians is located on its 72,000 acre Moapa River Reservation in Nevada. The Tribe’s reservation is the proposed site of a solar 350 megawatts energy project generating (sufficient to power 100,000 homes) being developed by K Road Power.
We posted on this case here.
Update — docs here:
California COA Briefs in Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Miwok
Interesting and important case. The appeal is from a $30 million judgment against the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians in favor of a developer of a gaming facility that failed in the 1990s, before the Tribe partnered with a new developer and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to open the existing Red Hawk Casino. The case went to trial after the NIGC’s final agency action ruling the main contract at issue was void as an unapproved management agreement.
2012-10-10 Tribe’s Opening Brief
2012-11-26 Sharp’s Respondent’s Brief
From the Tribe’s Opening Brief:
[T]he Superior Court erred in assuming subject matter jurisdiction over this breach of contract lawsuit by purporting to overturn a federal agency’s binding determination that the contract was unenforceable under a preemptive federal statute. It was also error to assume jurisdiction over a sovereign Indian nation after finding the Tribe did not clearly and unequivocally waive its immunity.
. . .
Once the NIGC took final agency action ruling Sharp’s ELA was a management contract that was void for lack of agency approval, this case was effectively over—or at least it should have been. The decision of the NIGC, the federal agency charged with approving and disapproving management contracts under IGRA, is binding on lower courts unless successfully challenged in a United States District Court. AT&T, 295 F.3d 899, 906, 909-10. Sharp opposed the Tribe’s efforts to stay the Superior Court action to permit Sharp to initiate proceedings in the only proper forum: federal district court. . . . Instead, Sharp convinced the Superior Court to reach the merits of the NIGC’s decision and enforce the very revenue sharing provisions the NIGC deemed illegal. . . . Sharp’s election to proceed without first challenging the NIGC’s final agency action is dispositive of the viability of Sharp’s ELA: it is void unless and until Sharp brings a proper federal court challenge, and any claims predicated on the ELA’s validity fail as a matter of law.
. . .
The Superior Court erred by failing to dismiss this case on mandated federal sovereign immunity principles. In ruling on the Tribe’s jurisdictional motion to dismiss, the Court erroneously applied inapposite state law contract interpretation cases when the question is controlled by federal law. . . . The Court also erred, as a matter of law, by failing to treat the defense as a question that needed to be resolved at the outset of the case, as opposed to one appropriate for a jury. . . . Finally, the Superior Court erred when it issued a ruling that should have compelled dismissal, since it found that the Tribe’s reading of the waiver provision in Sharp’s contracts was “reasonable” given the evidence regarding the waiver’s actual scope—i.e., that the waiver of immunity did not reach Sharp’s claims, and was limited to the gaming facility that Sharp and the Tribe had partnered to build, Crystal Mountain Casino.
Ninth Circuit Denies Rehearing/En Banc Review of Maxwell v. County of San Diego — Tribal Officials Not Immune under Section 1983
Here is the order:
Maxwell v. County of San Diego (9th 2013)
An excerpt:
The panel has voted to deny the petition for rehearing in case number 10-56671; Judges Clifton and Ikuta vote to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Farris so recommends. Judges Farris and Clifton vote to deny the petition for rehearing in case number 10-56706; Judge Clifton votes to deny the petition for rehearing en banc, and Judge Farris so recommends. Judge Ikuta votes to grant the petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the petitions for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matters en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petitions for panel rehearing and the petitions for rehearing en banc are DENIED.
Earlier materials are here: panel opinion materials and en banc petition.
Federal Bankruptcy Court Holds Future Tribal Per Caps Not Subject to Capture by Trustees
Here are the materials in In re Barth (D. Minn. Bkrtcy.):
An excerpt:
The Debtors are enrolled members of the Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State of Minnesota. Their predominant source of income is monthly per capita payments they receive from Lower Sioux. In these three adversary proceedings, the Chapter 7 trustees seek orders requiring the defendants to turnover post-petition per capita payments they receive from the Lower Sioux Indian Community, claiming that the payments are contingent property rights that existed at filing and constitute 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) property of the bankruptcy estates. The assertion is based on the plaintiffs’ application of Minnesota law to determine the nature of the per capita payments. The defendants claim that the defendants had no property interest in future per capita payments at filing of the bankruptcies. They claim that tribal law, not Minnesota law, is the applicable law and that tribal law specifically provides that tribal members have no property right in future per capita payments. Plaintiffs and defendants agree that summary judgment is appropriate. The Court agrees with the defendants and holds that they had no property rights in future per capita payments at bankruptcy filing and that they are entitled to summary judgment that their bankruptcy estates have no interest in the payments.
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the Lower Sioux Indian Community earlier; we posted materials here.
Federal Court Denies Yakama Motion for Injunction in State-Tribal Fuel Tax Dispute
Here are the updated materials in State of Washington v. Tribal Court for the Yakama Indian Nation (E.D. Wash.):
Washington Opposition to Yakama Motion
DCT Order Denying Yakama Motion for PI
The materials from the tribal court portion of this case are here. And the earlier federal court materials on tribal court jurisdiction are here.
Federal Court Affirms Arbitration Award Favoring Grand Canyon Skywalk Development
Here are the materials in Grand Canyon Skywalk Development LLC v. ‘Sa’ Nyu Wa (D. Ariz.):
DCT Order Confirming Arbitration Award
GCSD Application to Enforce Arbitration Award
Michigan Files Amicus Brief in State of Oklahoma v. Hobia
Wells Fargo Motion for TRO against Moapa Tribal Court Denied
Here are the materials in Wells Fargo Advisors v. Kolhoss (D. Nev.):
Wells Fargo Motion to Dismiss — Moapa Tribal Court [corrected]
From the federal court order:
Plaintiffs initiate this declaratory relief action seeking to declare that the tribal court lacks jurisdiction because the Tribe has waived sovereign immunity and agreed to arbitration. Plaintiffs seek an ex parte emergency temporary restraining order to enjoin the tribal court from proceeding with a hearing scheduled for February 7, 2013. However, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion because (1) the Motion does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the District of Nevada Local Rules; (2) Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of an emergency; and (3) Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm should the Court deny their Motion.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.