tribal sovereign immunity

This Court should reverse for legal errors the denial of the Nooksack Business Corporation’s motion to dismiss Outsource Services Management LLC’s complaint. The trial court erred when it denied the Nooksack Business Corporation’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Reversal is required to preserve the sovereignty of the Tribe under Washington and federal law and this Court’s jurisprudence regarding jurisdiction, and to comply with the Indian Gaming Regulation Act.

Update in Columbe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court (Suit re Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Nonmember)

February 6, 2012February 6, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in the denial of Columbe’s motions for reconsideration and to hold a trial for a permanent injunction (prior post here, with opinion dismissing plaintiff’s claims):

Columbe Motion for Reconsideration

RST Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration

Columbe Motion for Permanent Injunction

RST Opposition to Motion for Permanent Injunction

DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

Earliest post here.

Update in Shirk v. Tanakeyowma (ISDEAA Sovereign Immunity Case)

February 6, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the federal government’s pleadings in that case (and all the rest of the materials moved here as well):

Proposed United States’ Amicus Brief

Resp to USA’s Amicus Brief

Brief of Amicus Curiae in Opposition to Pltf.’s Motion to Set Aside Judgment

USA’s Mtn to Dismiss

USA’s Reply on MTD

Order Granting Rule 60 Relief (main opinion)

Under Advisement Ruling

Notice of Appeal

Arizona Court Holds ISDEAA Waives Tribal Immunity in State Court

February 3, 2012February 3, 2012Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here’s the court’s opinion.

An excerpt:

In this case, the GRIC officers were acting in the course and scope of their employment, but off the geographical boundaries of Indian Country. The Federal Tort Claim Act does not apply. Their activities instead fall within the intent of 25 U.S.C. § 450f(c). To the amount of GRIC liability coverage for the Defendants’ law enforcement activities off Indian Country not covered by FTCA, the GRIC has waived its Sovereign Immunity to suit in Arizona. The Court finds persuasive the U.S.A.’s Amicus Brief legal analysis. The Tribe has waived its Sovereign Immunity for the activities of the Defendant Officers in this case.