Western District of Washington – Page 26

Mr. Boyd purports to sue the Emerald Queen Casino, a security guard at the Emerald Queen Casino, and tribal officers of the Puyallup Indian Tribe for false imprisonment after a charge of criminal trespass was brought against him in Tacoma Municipal Court. Dkt. 5, p. 3. Mr. Boyd alleges that a “Puyallup Tribal officer along with employees of the Emerald Queen had worked together … to charge [him] with a crime of criminal trespassing in the first degree in Tacoma Municipal Court (Case # B00229679) which was Dismissed with Prejudice.” Id. Mr. Boyd further alleges that this has “created false imprisonment,” that he has lost his reputation, “which has become cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment, and that he has been discriminated against. Id

Nooksack Tribe Assessed Costs after Removing Contract Claim to Federal Court

October 17, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Marshall Bank v. Nooksack Business Corp. II (W.D. Wash.):

Marshall Bank DCT Order

Marshall Bank Motion to Remand

Nooksack Response

Marshall Bank Reply Brief

An excerpt:

Plaintiff seeks an award of just costs and actual expenses incurred, including attorney fees, under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The process of removing a case to federal court and then having it remanded back to state court delays resolution of the case, imposes additional costs on both parties, and wastes judicial resources. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 140 (2005). Therefore, an award of fees is appropriate when the removing party lacks an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Id. Here, defendants lacked any objectively reasonable basis to remove this case.1 As such, an award of just costs and actual expenses incurred, including attorney fees, is appropriate. Continue reading →

Quinault Wins Right to Land Consolidation; Court Overturns IBIA

August 7, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Anderson & Middleton v. Salazar (W.D. Wash.) in which the BIA had apparently refused to apply a statutory obligation favoring the Quinault Indian Nation’s efforts at land consolidation — Anderson & Middleton DCT Order

And the materials (earlier materials are here):

Quinault Motion for Summary Judgment

A&M Opposition to QIN Motion

DOI Motion for Summary Judgment

Court Order on the Frank’s Landing Case

July 11, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Reported yesterday in Indianz, here is the order — Frank’s Landing Summary Judgment Order

And the summary judgment briefs (preliminary injunction briefs were posted here):

Frank’s Landing Motion for Summary Judgment

Gregoire Motion for Summary Judgment

Lopeman Motion for Summary Judgment

Unfortunately, Nisqually’s motion for partial summary judgment is sealed.

Summary Judgment Denied in Chehalis Great Wolf Lodge Tax Dispute

July 8, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Confederated Chehalis Tribes v. Thurston County (W.D. Wash.) — DCT Order Denying Chehalis Motion for Summary Judgment (briefs are here, and an earlier opinion is here).

An excerpt:

n this case, the Court is not persuaded that the rule of Rickert applies to bar the taxation in question because this case involves a significantly different factual scenario. Although the site in Grand Mound is held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Tribe, the Lessee, CTGW, owns the improvements in fee during the terms of the Lease. Moreover, it cannot be said that the improvements are “occupied” by the Tribe as CTGW currently uses the improvements to operate a hotel, conference center, and indoor water park. Therefore, the Rickert rule that was implemented to protect a homestead and associated livestock is, in this Court’s opinion, inapplicable to privately owned commercial business ventures even though the improvements are on land held in trust by the United States.

Federal Government Attempt to Seize Tribal Smokeshop Funds Fails (For Now)

June 18, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in United States v. Funds from Wells Fargo Bank Account (W.D. Wash.) — US v Funds from Wells Fargo Bank Account DCT Order

An excerpt:

A genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Isleta qualifies as an innocent owner of the funds in question. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of Isleta’s funds are subject to civil forfeiture and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether Defendant Isleta was an innocent owner of the funds in question. The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issues of whether Defendant Isleta’s funds are subject to civil forfeiture and whether Isleta was an innocent owner of the funds in question.

Indian Law Cases Dominate Rule 19 Jurisprudence in the Ninth Circuit

June 11, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Ah, nerd that I am about Rule 19….

Here is a case that has nothing to do whatsoever, so far as I can tell, about Indian law, but every single case cited by the court is an Indian law case — Regence BlueShield DCT Order

Second Update on Chehalis Great Wolf Tax Case

May 18, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

The court has ordered Chehalis to show cause as to this question (our earlier post with the briefings on the Tribe’s motion for summary judgment is here):

Plaintiffs have alleged a new claim in their complaint that Defendants’ failure to follow Revenue’s opinion is a violation of both state and federal law. See supra. The original complaint, however, involved claims based only on issues of federal law. See Dkt. 1. Thus, before reaching the merits of Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, the Court orders Plaintiffs to show cause, if any they have, why this Court should exert jurisdiction over this new claim. Although Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ failure to follow Revenue’s decision is also a violation of “federal preemption law,” there has been no showing that a county assessor violates federal preemption law solely by failing to follow a state agency’s opinion as to the imposition of a tax. In other words, if Revenue had opined that the tax was not preempted and the assessor refused to impose the tax, it is questionable whether the assessor’s action in conflict with Revenue’s opinion would raise a federal question invoking this Court’s jurisdiction. Therefore, the new claim seems to be purely a matter of state law regarding the authority of the state agency, Revenue, over the Thurston County Assessor.

Plaintiffs bear the burden to show why the Court should assert jurisdiction over this state law claim and why the Court (1) should not abstain from this matter, (2) is not divested from jurisdiction over this matter, or (3) should not decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the new claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(1).

Here is the order — DCT Order to Show Cause re State Law Claims