Fourth Circuit Denies Enforcement of Tribal Payday Lending Arbitration and Governing Law Provisions in Two Decisions

Here are the materials in Gibbs v. Haynes Investments LLC:

Opinion

Gibbs Brief

Haynes Brief

NAFOA Amicus Brief

Reply

American Association for Justice Amicus Brief

Here are the materials in Gibbs v. Sequoia Capital Operations LLC:

Opinion

Sequoia Brief

NAFOA Amicus Brief

Gibbs Brief

Reply

Third Circuit Rejects Tribal Sovereign Lending Arbitration Demand

Here are the materials in Williams v. Medley Opportunity Fund II:

opinion-1.pdf

red-stone-appellant-brief.pdf

nafoa-amicus-brief.pdf

appellee-brief-1.pdf

american-assn-of-justice-amicus-brief.pdf

red-stone-reply.pdf

Fourth Circuit Briefs in Case Involving Tribal Sovereign Lending of Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake

Here are the briefs in Hengle v. Treppa:

Appellant Brief

Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake Consumer Financial Services Regulatory Commission Amicus Brief

NAFOA Amicus Brief

New Mexico Amicus Brief

Lower court materials here.

Tribal Entity’s Effort to Remove Payday Lending Suit to Federal Court is Thwarted by Well-Pleaded Complaint Rule

Here are the materials in Booker v. Plain Green LLC (M.D. Fla.):

1 Notice of Removal

1-1 State Court Complaint

9 Motion to Remand

14 Motion to Dismiss

15 Opposition to Motion to Remand

16 DCT Order Granting Motion to Remand

Sixth Circuit Briefs in Sovereign Lending Case Involving Chippewa Cree Tribe

Here are the briefs in Swiger v. Rosette:

Lower court materials in Swiger v. Rosette (E.D. Mich.):

Federal Court Certifies Tribal Lending Case for Interlocutory Appeal

Here are materials in Hengle v. Asner (E.D. Va.):

Federal Court Allows Class Action against Tribal Sovereign Lending of Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake to Proceed

Here are the materials so far in Hengle v. Asner (E.D. Va.):

54 Amended Complaint

58 Asner Motion to Compel

60 Asner Motion to Dismiss

63 Tribal Officials Motion to Compel

65 Tribal Officials Motion to Dismiss

76 Tribe Amicus Brief

95 Response to 76

96 Response to 63

97 Response to 58

98 Response to 65

99 Response to 60

102 Amicus Brief of Tribal Amici Curiae

103 Reply in Support of 58

104 Reply in Support of 60

105 Reply in Support of 63

106 Reply in Support of 65

107 Response to 102

109 DCT Order

Briefs in Short Term Loan/Sovereign Immunity Matter involving Lac Du Flambeau Ojibwe President

Here are the materials so far in Jones v. Wildcat (E.D. Pa.):

2019.06.07-docket-1-complaint-with-exhibits.pdf

2019.08.30-docket-9-wildcat-mtd.pdf

2019.09.23-22-jones-response-mtd.pdf

2019.09.23-22-1-jones-aff.pdf

Sequoia Capital Operations LLC v. Gingras Cert Petition [Chippewa-Cree Sovereign Lending]

Here:

petitionforwritofcertiorari-3.pdf

Question presented:

Where an arbitration agreement contains a separate “delegation provision” that reserves for an arbitrator the authority to decide any disputes concerning arbitrability, does Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act require a court to decide any challenge to that provision’s validity before the court may proceed to address whether the parties’ underlying dispute is arbitrable?

Lower court materials here.

Update:

BIO: BriefInOpposition

Second Circuit Affirms in Gingras v. Think Finance Inc. [Chippewa Cree Lending]

Here is the opinion:

CA2 Opinion

From the court syllabus:

Plaintiffs Jessica Gingras and Angela C. Given borrowed money from Plain Green, LLC, an online lending operation owned by the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Indian Reservation in Montana. The terms of their loan agreements provide for interest rates well in excess of caps imposed by Vermont law. Gingras and Given sued, alleging violations of Vermont and federal law. They seek an injunction against tribal officers in charge of Plain Green and an award of money damages against other Defendants. 

Some Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that tribal sovereign immunity barred the suit. All Defendants moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the agreements. The district court (Geoffrey W. Crawford, Judge) denied both motions. We hold that tribal sovereign immunity does not bar this suit because Plaintiffs may sue tribal officers under a theory analogous to Ex parte Young for prospective, injunctive relief based on violations of state and substantive federal law occurring off of tribal lands. We further hold that the arbitration clauses of the loan agreements are unenforceable and unconscionable.

Briefs and link to lower court materials here.