Federal Court Orders Appointment of Counsel for Individual Defendants in Grondal v. United States

Here are the materials in Grondal v. United States (E.D. Wash.):

232 US Motion for Summary J

275 Colville Motion to Dismiss

279 DCT Order re Supplemental Memorandums

280 Colville Supplement

281 US Supplement

293 Wapato Heritage Response

305-1 Colville Reply

306 US Reply

308 DCT Order re Additional Supplemental Briefing

312 Plaintiffs Supplemental Briefing

313 US Supplemental Briefing

315 Wapato Heritage Supplemental Briefing

316 Colville Supplemental Briefing

329 DCT Order re Appointment of Counsel

Prior rulings in this matter are here and here.

Federal Court Dismisses Colville Tribe from Non-Indian Claims to Indian Allotments (Sorta)

Here are the materials in this update to Grondal v. United States (E.D. Wash.):

021612 Order

Colville Motion

Plaintiffs’ Opposition

Wapato Heritage Opposition

Colville Reply

An excerpt from the court’s order:

Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on January 21, 2009. Plaintiffs have acquired memberships in and are tenants/occupants of the Mill Bay Resort, a campground located on Lake Chelan in Chelan County, Washington. The Mill Bay Resort exists on real property known as Moses Allotment No.8, also known as Indian Allotment 151-MA-8 (“MA_8”), which consists of approximately 174.26 acres on the shores of Lake Chelan. MA-8 is part of an original allotment authorized under the Moses Agreement of July 7, 1883 as ratified by 23 Stat. 79-80, July 4, 1884 and conveyed to Wapato John through two trust patents. The history of the creation ofMA-8 and other Moses Agreement allotments has been discussed elsewhere, including in this court’s decision on summary judgment (ECF No. 144), in Wapato Heritage, LLC v. U.S., 637 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2011), and in U.S. v. La Chappelle, 81 F. 152 (C.C. 12 Wash. 1897), United States v. Moore, 161 F. 513 (9th Cir. 1908), and Starr v. Long Jim, 227 13 U.S. 613 (1913).

Ninth Circuit Affirms Wapato Heritage v. Evans — UPDATED

Here is today’s opinion. A related unpublished opinion disposing of other claims presumably will appear later in the day is here.

The briefs are here.

Lower court materials.

An excerpt detailing the issue:

Plaintiff-Appellant Wapato Heritage, L.L.C. (Wapato),appeals the district court’s order denying its motion for summary judgment and motion for reconsideration, and grantingDefendants-Appellees’ motion for summary judgment andmotion to dismiss. We address whether Wapato’spredecessor-in-interest, William Wapato Evans, Jr. (Evans),effectively exercised his option to renew a lease agreement(Lease) between Evans and certain Native American landowners (Landowners) covering real property known as MosesAllotment No. 8 (MA-8). The district court ruled that Evansdid not comply with the Lease’s requirements that he notifyall the Landowners that he intended to renew the Lease.Wapato, the current holder of all the Lessee’s rights under theLease, timely appealed.