Western District of Washington – Page 20

The Government contends that, based on custom and practice, the per capita payments were fixed and determinable. The Government admits that “this is a matter of first impression” (Dkt. 22 at 16), and the Court declines to adopt the Government’s proposition that the rule that levies may attach to discretionary, yet customary payments. Just like there is no guarantee that a subsequent deposit will be made to a levied bank account, there is no guarantee that Turnipseed will receive another per capita payment. While the Tribe strives to provide for its members, it still makes a discretionary monthly decision whether it shall do so. Moreover, the fact that a payment is likely is the same as classifying a sale of personal property as likely. But, according to the regulations, a levy cannot attach until the individual has actually sold the item. Therefore, the Court concludes that the levies in question did not attach to Turnipseed’s per capita payments.

Federal Court Rules Against Feds in Lower Elwha Fish Hatchery Challenge

March 31, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Wild Fish Conservancy v. National Park Service (W.D. Wash.):

153 Wild Fish Conservancy Motion for Summary J

164 Federal Cross Motion for Summary J

191 DCT Order

Prior posts are here, here, here, here, and here.

Chehalis Tribes Win $22K+ in Costs from Thurston County in Tax Dispute

February 5, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

doc. 220 Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs

doc. 222 Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs

doc. 226 Reply re Motion for Costs

doc. 228 Taxation of Costs

Answer Briefs in United States v. Washington Culverts Appeal

January 29, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Tribal Brief

US Brief

Indian Law Professors

Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations

Federal Court Dismisses Skokomish Treaty Rights Claims against State under 11th Amendment and Rule 19

January 15, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark (W.D. Wash.):

59 State Defendants Motion to Dismiss

60 Prosecuting Attys Motion to Dismiss

67 Tribal Amici Motion to Dismiss

71 Skokomish Reponse

116 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

Being fully advised, the court GRANTS both motions on grounds that Skokomish Indian Tribe failed to join certain other Indian tribes in this action. These other tribes are required parties under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, but cannot be joined due to their sovereign immunity. Because the court concludes that the action cannot proceed “in equity and good conscience” without these other tribes, see id., the court dismisses Skokomish Indian Tribe’s action without prejudice. With respect to Defendants Goldmark and Young only, the court also grants Defendants’ motions to dismiss on grounds of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and because Skokomish Indian Tribe has failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Nevertheless, despite granting Defendants’ motions, the court also grants Skokomish Indian Tribe leave to amend its Amended Complaint.

We posted the complaint here.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Another Matheson Objection to Tribal-State Tax Compact

December 27, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Matheson v. Smith:

CA9 Unpublished Memorandum

Matheson Opening Brief

Washington Brief

Matheson Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Thurston County Attempt to Widen Chehalis Tribes’ Great Wolf Lodge Tax Dispute Fails

December 17, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Thurston County Board of Equalization (W.D. Wash.):

210 County Motion for Declaratory Judgment

217 Chehalis Response

218 DCT Order Denying County Motion

An excerpt:

On November 21, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for declaratory judgment requesting that the Court “enter a declaratory judgment that the property taxes on the non-permanent, removable business personal property are not preempted as a matter of law . . . .” Dkt. 210 at 8–9. On December 9, 2013, Plaintiff opposed the motion on the grounds that it is procedurally improper and seeks relief outside of the pleadings. Dkt. 217 at 4–8. The Court agrees with Plaintiff on both points because (1) the amended complaint for declaratory judgment seeks relief for improvements that are not removable (Dkt. 46, ¶ 19) and (2) “a party may not make a motion for declaratory relief, but rather, the party must bring an action for a declaratory judgment.”