Here:

Lower court materials here.
Here are the updated materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe (D. Utah):
297 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration of Sanctions Order
302 Ute Motion to Recover Costs
303 Ute Motion for Relief from Judgment
314 Ute Reply in Support of 304
315 DCT Order Granting Ute Motion to Recover Costs
Prior post on the attorney fee sanction against Ute here.
Prior post on the Tenth Circuit decision in this case favoring Ute here.
Here:
Questions presented:
Whether a federal court may force a non-consenting, non-Indian plaintiff to exhaust his claims in tribal court when the defendant tribe has expressly consented by contract to federal or state court jurisdiction and waived both sov- ereign immunity and tribal exhaustion.
Whether a state court may adjudicate a contractual dispute between a tribe and a non-Indian where the tribe has provided specific contrac- tual consent to state court jurisdiction; or in- stead, whether the Constitution or laws of the United States prohibit such exercises of state court jurisdiction unless the State has assumed general civil jurisdiction over tribal territory under Sections 1322 and 1326 of Title 25.
Lower court materials here.
Update:
Here. An excerpt describing the holding:
This appeal marks the latest chapter in a long-running contract dispute between the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (the Tribe) and Lynn Becker, a non-Indian. The contract concerned Becker’s work marketing and developing the Tribe’s mineral resources on the Ute reservation. Almost seven years ago, Becker sued the Tribe in Utah state court for allegedly breaching the contract by failing to pay him a percentage of certain revenue the Tribe received from its mineral holdings. Later, the Tribe filed this lawsuit, challenging the state court’s subject matter jurisdiction under federal law. The district court denied the Tribe’s motion for a preliminary injunction against the state-court proceedings, and the Tribe appeals.
We reverse and hold that the Tribe is entitled to injunctive relief. The district court’s factual findings establish that Becker’s state-court claims arose on the reservation because no substantial part of the conduct supporting them occurred elsewhere. And because the claims arose on the reservation, the state court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction absent congressional authorization.
Briefs here.
Here are the new materials in the long-running Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):
205 Becker Notice of Intent to Subpoena
228 Response to Order to Show Cause
234 Becker Memorandum re Tribe’s Documents
235 Becker Response to Order re Sanctions against Tribe
261-1 Arbitration Statement of Claims
269 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
270 Tribe Motion to Reconsider 260
Prior post here.
Here are the relevant materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation (D. Utah):
134 becker motion for sanctions
146 tribal parties motion for sanctions
154 dct order denying becker motion for sanctions
155 dct order denying tribal parties motion for sanctions
Other Becker related posts here. Posts in Ute Indian Tribe v. Lawrence here.
Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe v. Lawrence (D. Utah):
95 becker opposition to emergency motion
Tenth Circuit materials here.
Here are the relevant materials in Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. Lawrence (D. Utah):
This matter is on remand from the Tenth Circuit.
Here are the materials in Ute Indian Tribe v. Lawrence:
Here are the materials in Becker v. Ute Indian Tribe:
Prior posts here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.