Here are the materials in North Quinault Properties LLC v. Quinault Indian Nation Complaint (W.D. Wash.):
13 Washington Motion to Dismiss
We posted the complaint here.
Western District of Washington
Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Quinault Lease under Rule 19, Sovereign Immunity
Here are the materials in Comenout v. Whitener (W.D. Wash.):
25 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint
An excerpt:
The Nation is an indispensible party under Rule 19(b). As discussed above, a judgment in Comenout’s favor would prejudice the Nation’s contractual rights under the lease. Comenout also cannot be accorded complete relief in the Nation’s absence because any injunction would not be binding on the Nation. Further, the relief sought by Comenout cannot be shaped to lessen the potential prejudice to either Comenout or the Nation. Partial relief is also inadequate, because the Nation could still attempt to enforce its rights to use the property for commercial purposes as the lessee.
Materials on Makah Indian Tribe’s Request for Determination Re Quileute and Quinault Usual and Accustomed Fishing Grounds in the Pacific Ocean
There is the potential for an enormous amount of chaos for both US v. Washington and for any Indian tribe with extant treaty rights based on the arguments going on here now. Most notably, several tribes (Quinault, Quileute, and Hoh) are claiming that the Sherrill-based equitable defenses may apply in some way to Indian treaty claims.
I find this personally horrifying and disturbing — that any tribe would claim that Sherrill and its Second Circuit progeny apply to treaty rights. Sherrill is a statute-based claim, and so are the Second Circuit cases that purport to follow its reasoning. Treaty rights are an entirely different genre.
I sincerely hope the U.S. v. Washington tribes will opt-out of federal litigation — with its potential to undercut treaty rights for tribes all over the country — and move toward an inter-tribal treaty. There is at least one proposal on the table, and tribal leaders and tribal constituents should act quickly to adopt it. These inter-tribal disputes are doing nothing now but threatening to make bad law for everyone.
Luckily, Judge Martinez did not hold that equitable defenses apply here, but who knows what will happen in the Ninth Circuit and beyond.
Here are the new materials in subproceeding 09-01 of United States v. Washington (No. 70-9213) (W.D. Wash.):
248 Makah Motion for Summary J on Equitable Defenses
251 Quinault and Quileute Motion for Summary J
267 Quinault and Quileute Response to 248 Motion
274 Makah Reply in Support of 248 Motion
275 Interested Tribes Response to 251 – Equitable Defenses
279 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 251
281 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 251
283 Quileute and Quinault Motion to Define Burden of Proof
284 Interested Tribes Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
285 US Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
286 Upper Skagit Tribe Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
287 Makah Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
288 State of Washington Response to 283 — Burden of Proof
289 Quileute and Quinault Reply to 284 in Support of 283
290 Quileute and Quinault Reply in Support of 283
304 DCT on Motions for Summary J
Materials in a related pending Ninth Circuit matter in subproceeding 09-01 are here.
North Quinault Properties LLC v. Quinault Indian Nation Complaint
Here is the complaint:
An excerpt:
Under State and federal law Lake Quinault, a navigable waterway abutting the Quinault Indian Reservation and located in Washington State, should be open to the public for its use and recreation as well as to those non-tribal property owners with real property abutting the Lake shore such as the Plaintiffs. However for more than a decade the Quinault Indian Tribe has increasingly asserted “jurisdiction” and control over this navigable waterway, forcing out the public and non-tribal property owners in derogation of the Equal Footing Doctrine and the Public Trust Doctrine. Most recently, the Quinault Indian Tribe has restricted all use of the Lake for non-tribal members. Through this civil action, the Plaintiffs seek court determination as to the status of Lake Quinault and the property rights of non-tribal property owners abutting the Lake and court determination as to the public’s right to access of the Lake, its shore and lakebed.
Ninth Circuit Materials in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington — Gaming Compact Dispute
Here are the briefs:
Oral argument audio here.
Lower court materials here:
Ninth Circuit Materials in Hoh/Quinault/Quileute v. Port Gamble/Jamestown/Makah Subproceeding 09-1
Here are the briefs in United States v. Washington subproceeding 09-1:
Quinault & Quileute Tribes Opening Brief
Port Gamble and Jamestown S’Klallam Tribes Answer Brief
ICRA Suit against Makah Tribe Dismissed by Federal Court
Here are the materials in Chamblin v. Greene (W.D. Wash.):
Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Lummi Tribe in Treaty Fishing Dispute
Here is the court’s opinion in United States (Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Tribe) v. Lummi Tribe:
The court’s syllabus:
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment entered in favor of the Klallam Tribe in a case involving a fishing territory dispute between two sets of Indian Tribes, brought pursuant to the continuing jurisdiction of the 1974 “Boldt Decree” issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
The panel held that the issue of whether the waters immediately to the west of northern Whidbey Island were part of the Lummi Tribe’s usual and accustomed fishing grounds had not yet been determined. The panel held, therefore, that the district court erred in concluding that the issue was controlled by law of the case. The panel remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
Judge Rawlinson dissented because she would hold that the district court properly applied the law of the case doctrine where the fishing rights issue was addressed in the prior opinion United States v. Lummi Indian Tribe, 235 F.3d 443 (9th Cir. 2000).
Briefs and other materials here.
Nooksack Disenrollees Get Discovery in Suit against Interior Department
Here are the updated materials in St. Germain v. Dept. of Interior (W.D. Wash.):
29 – Defendants’ Motion for Order Determining Applicable Standard of Judicial Review
30 – Response Re Motion for Order Determining Applicable Standard of Review
31 – Defendants’ Reply re Motion for Order Determining Applicable Standard of Judicial Review
32 – Declaration of Judith R Joseph
Prior materials in this federal case here.
Quileute Tribe Sues Merchandising Company for Violation of Indian Arts and Crafts Act Related to “Twilight” Movies
Here is the complaint in Quileute Tribe v. National Entertainment Collectibles Association (W.D. Wash.):
An excerpt:
1. The Quileute Tribe brings this Complaint against National Entertainment Collectibles Association, Inc. (“NECA”) for unfair competition and for violation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. In this action, the Quileute Tribe seeks to protect its heritage from Defendant’s improperly marketed and advertised products, and to ensure that consumers are no longer deceived, confused or misled in their pursuits to find and acquire authentic and genuine Quileute products.
2. The Quileute people have lived on the Olympic Peninsula for thousands of years, and have their own unique language, art and folklore. Quileute art and artifacts are prized for their distinctive character, and are displayed in museums throughout Washington.3. As alleged herein, NECA has advertised, promoted, and sold its goods under the “Quileute” name on the Internet and in various retail stores across the United States. Defendant’s conduct is designed to convey to consumers a false association or affiliation with the Quileute Tribe, and to unfairly trade off of the fame, reputation and goodwill of the Quileute Tribe.4. Consumers have been misled as to the source, origin, sponsorship, or affiliation of Defendant’s products sold under the “Quileute” name. If Defendant is permitted to continue to market and retail its products, many consumers will conclude that the goods sold by NECA were originated from, jointly developed by, licensed, certified, supported by or are otherwise affiliated with the Quileute Tribe, which they are not.5. In addition, NECA sells its goods by falsely suggesting they are the product of the Quileute Tribe, are Indian-produced or are the product of an Indian Tribe, in violation of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act.
6. The Quileute Tribe accordingly brings this action, seeks damages, and seeks to enjoin NECA from using the “Quileute” name for the marketing and sale of goods.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.