Turtle Mountain tribal court

Federal Court Hold Turtle Mountain Tribal Court Has Jurisdiction over Indian Claims against Insurance Company

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in State Farm Insurance Companies v. Turtle Mountain Fleet Farm LLC (D.N.D.):

25 Greenwoods Motion for Summary J + Tribal Appellate Court Decision

27 State Farm Motion for Summary J

27-1 Tribal Court Complaint

27-3 State Farm Tribal Court Motion to Dismiss

37 Greenwood Response

38 State Farm Response

39 State Farm Reply

42 MJ Order

An excerpt:

In summary, the court concludes that the tribal court does have jurisdiction over the Greenwoods’ claims against State Farm. In reaching this conclusion, the status of the title of the land is not a significant consideration. Rather, the important factors for purposes of this case, given the nature of the activity at issue, are that the insurance policy was issued to members of the Tribe and is for a residence located on the reservation. Consequently, the court would reach the same conclusion if the Greenwoods’ residence was situated on non-Indian owned fee land.

Federal Court Complaint in Turtle Mountain Reservation Leasing Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Grenier v. Delorme (D.N.D.):

1 Complaint + Exhibits

An excerpt:

On or about March 18, 2010, Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into a ten – year Lease of Real Estate (“Lease”) for Defendant’s land located at tract number 324-5065 and described as E/2NE/4, of Section 3, Township 161 N., Range 71 W., Rolette County, North Dakota. This land is not located on the Turtle Mountain Reservation, but is trust land. A  copy of the Lease is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Prior to entering into the Lease, Plaintiffs had farmed the land subject to the Lease for over thirty years.

 

Federal Court Complaint Filed Alleging Turtle Mountain Tribal Court “Bad Faith”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Knight v. Vondal (D. N.D.):

Knight v Vondal Complaint

Tribal Court TRO

Agamenv LLC v. Lavedure

Kate Fort

North Dakota federal district court refrains from issuing a TRO in a dispute between Turtle Mountain Tribal Council, Tribal Court, and gaming company.

Order

Complaint-FDC

Brief

Complaint-tribal court

Ex Parte TRO – tribal court

Motion to Withdraw TRO-tribal court

 

Federal Court Declines to Certify Class in Truth-In-Lending/Usury Claims against Auto Dealers Near Turtle Mountain

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are selected materials in Delorme v. Autos, Inc. (D. N.D.):

DCT Order Denying Motion to Certify Class

Delorme Motion for Summary Judgment — Fed Truth in Lending [includes many of the sales documents]

Delorme Motion for Summary Judgment — Usery

The most remarkable materials are the tribal court complaint and the settlement agreement with Autos, Inc. — executed the day after the filing of the complaint — that amounts to a full capitulation on the part of the auto dealer. Bonnie Delorme purchased a car at 25% interest after a $3000 down payment, never defaulted on the loan, and had her car repossessed anyway.

Delorme v Autos Inc Tribal Court Complaint

Delorme — Autos Settlement

Case to Watch — Amerind v. Malaterre

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

The Eighth Circuit will be hearing Amerind v. Malaterre shortly. The appellant’s brief is here (amerind-appellant-brief). Our previous posting, with the district court materials and opinion, and the Turtle Mountain appellate court opinion is here. [Disclosure–I was a sitting appellate judge for the tribal court, but I did not participate in this matter.]

This case is a case to watch because it is a candidate for Supreme Court review under Montana v. United States. Maybe not a great candidate, but anything’s possible in the Roberts Court when it comes to tribal court jurisdiction over nonmembers.

Amerind is an insurance company chartered under federal law (according to my understanding, which could be wrong) that insures tribal housing. This case involves a fire at Turtle Mountain. Plaintiffs sued the Turtle Mountain Housing Authority, which was insured by Amerind. During the tribal court proceedings, the housing authority dropped out as a defendant, leaving Amerind as the insurance company and sole defendant. I suspect there is much confusion on the question of whether an insurance company can be a named defendant as a replacement for the real defendant (or alleged tortfeasor), since it is usually the insurance company that handles the defense and even hires the lawyers. Amerind, like any insurance company, is looking for an out.

Continue reading →