Wapato Heritage LLC v. Evans

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).

Wapato Heritage v. Evans Update — Federal Court Order Appointing Receiver to Manage Judgment Funds

July 19, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER

Ninth Circuit Rehearing/En Banc Petition in Wapato Heritage v. Evans

April 17, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

EVANS – MOTION TO EXCEED TYPE VOLUME LIMITATION (4-15-11)

EVANS – FILED PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (4-15-11)

Ninth Circuit Affirms Wapato Heritage v. Evans (2-1)

April 1, 2011March 31, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion.

Judge Tallman in dissent objected to federal subject matter jurisdiction over the claims.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Wapato Heritage v. Evans — UPDATED

March 22, 2011March 23, 2011Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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 A related unpublished opinion disposing of other claims ~~presumably will appear later in the day~~ is here.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.