Wells Fargo Advisors v. Kolhoss

Moapa Drops Tribal Court Suit against Wells Fargo; Agrees to Mediation (Updated 2/25/13)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the tribe’s press release:

MOAPA DISMISSES TRIBAL COURT ACTION
Moapa, NV –The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians today announced that it and Wells Fargo Financial Advisors LLC had agreed to submit to mediation certain issues between the parties, and that the Band had caused dismissal of an action against Wells Fargo Financial Advisors commenced in the Tribe’s tribal court.
Tribal Chairman William Anderson commented that “The Tribe will always defend its inherent sovereign rights. However, the Tribe also observes its valid agreements, including valid waivers of its sovereign immunity. Further, the Band strives to be commercially responsible in its contractual relationships. We believe that the Band’s voluntary submission of the issues to mediation and dismissal of the tribal court action reflect these principles. We hope that through good faith mediation the parties will mutually resolve the issues.”
About the Moapa Band of Paiutes
The Moapa Band of Paiute Indians is located on its 72,000 acre Moapa River Reservation in Nevada. The Tribe’s reservation is the proposed site of a solar 350 megawatts energy project generating (sufficient to power 100,000 homes) being developed by K Road Power.

We posted on this case here.

Update — docs here:

Moapa 2-22-13 Press Release

Moapa Tribal Court Dismissal

 

Wells Fargo Motion for TRO against Moapa Tribal Court Denied

Matthew L.M. Fletcher5 Comments

Here are the materials in Wells Fargo Advisors v. Kolhoss (D. Nev.):

DCT Order Denying TRO

Wells Fargo Complaint

Wells Fargo Motion for TRO

Moapa Tribal Court Order

Wells Fargo Motion to Dismiss — Moapa Tribal Court [corrected]

From the federal court order:

Plaintiffs initiate this declaratory relief action seeking to declare that the tribal court lacks jurisdiction because the Tribe has waived sovereign immunity and agreed to arbitration. Plaintiffs seek an ex parte emergency temporary restraining order to enjoin the tribal court from proceeding with a hearing scheduled for February 7, 2013. However, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion because (1) the Motion does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 and the District of Nevada Local Rules; (2) Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate the existence of an emergency; and (3) Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm should the Court deny their Motion.