|
|
|
Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. Kennedy
Briefs
2009 WL 3615971
No. CV F 09-1248 LJO SMS
United States District Court, E.D. California, November 3, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) From 2006 through the present, Plaintiffs, Defendants, and others not party to this action have contested the governance of the Tribe fiercely. Governance of the Tribe has split, and two factions have emerged-one faction based out of Bishop, California (“Bishop faction”) and one faction based out of Death Valley, California (“Death Valley faction”). Plaintiffs are associated with the Bishop faction, Defendants are associated with the Death Valley faction. In an attempt to gain leadership and control over the tribe, funded by dueling Casino prospecting businesses, and separated by geography, the Bishop and Death Valley factions have held separate elections and run parallel and competing tribal governments since 2006. All disputed elections have been appealed to the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”). Currently, those appeals are consolidated and remain unresolved. Each faction claiming to be authorized representatives of the Tribe, bank accounts are opened in the Tribe's name only to be closed or frozen once the bank becomes aware of the governance dispute. Adding to the confusion, the Death Valley faction, after re-examining enrollment records, disenrolled over 70 people from the Tribe, including Plaintiffs and a large number of the Bishop faction. These actions have caused harm to the parties, the Tribe, non-party Tribe members, former Tribe members, government agencies and their agents, and businesses in the area surrounding tribal lands.
*Holding: not yet available
October
Lanphere v. Wright
2009 WL 3617752
No. C09-5462BHS
United States District Court, October 29, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) As a threshold matter, the Court must determine whether it is vested with authority to rule in a matter where the same parties have presented the same issues before the Tribal Court of Appeals and that action remains unresolved in the tribal court system. This is the case here. See Dkt. 5 (first amended complaint); see also Dkt. 6-4 (order staying Tribal Court of Appeals proceedings). Defendants move the Court to dismiss this case because Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their remedies in the Puyallup Tribal Court.
*Holding: not yet available
Slokish v. United States Federal Highway Administration
2009 WL 3335320
No. CV-08-1169-ST
United States District Court, Oregon, October 13, 2009
Subjects: Sacred sites -- Oregon; Archaeological sites -- Oregon; Hood, Mount (Or.); United States. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; United States. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; United States. Federal Highway Administration; Oregon. Dept. of Transportation; United States. Bureau of Land Management.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This case involves the U.S. Highway 26 Wildwood-Wemme highway widening project (“Wildwood-Wemme project” or “the project”) near Mt. Hood, Oregon, which was substantially completed in 2008. Plaintiffs consist of individuals and organizations who seek to preserve, protect, and rehabilitate Native American sacred and cultural sites and historical and archaeological resources in the lands surrounding Mount Hood. They allege that defendants United States Federal Highway Administration (“FHWA”), United States Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”), Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (“ACHP”), and Matthew Garrett, the Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation (“ODOT”), violated the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), 16 USC §§ 470-470x-6, National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 USC §§ 4321-4347, § 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (“DTA”), 49 USC § 303, the public trust doctrine, the due process clause, and also committed a breach of fiduciary duty.
*Holding: not yet available
Gristede's Food, Inc v. Unkechauge Nation
2009 WL 3235181
No. 06-cv-1260
United States District Court, E.D. New York, October 8, 2009
Subjects: Cigarettes -- Taxation; Cigarettes -- Sales; United States. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; United States. Trademark Act of 1946; Unkechauge Poospatuck Tribe; Shinnecock Indian Nation (N.Y.); Gristede's Foods, Inc.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff Gristede's Foods, Inc. commenced this action against the Unkechauge Nation, a/k/a Unkechauge Poospatuck Tribe (the “Unkechauge,” “Poospatuck” or “tribe”) and the Shinnecock Tribe, a/k/a the Shinnecock Indian Nation (the “Shinnecock”); individual defendants Harry Wallace (“Wallace” or “Chief Wallace”), Randall King, James W. Eleazer, Jr., and Lance A. Gumbs; the Poospatuck Smoke Shop and Trading Post (the “Poospatuck Smoke Shop” or “Smoke Shop”) and Shinnecock, Ltd. Plaintiff, a chain of supermarkets in the New York City area, alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and state law claims for unjust enrichment, unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, and false advertising arising from defendants' tax-free cigarette sales and advertising. The Unkechauge inhabits approximately 50 acres of land along the bank of the Poospatuck Creek on the southern coast of what is now the Town of Brookhaven on Long Island, New York.
*Holding: not yet available
Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakama Nation v. United States
2009 WL 3286777
No. 09-160L
United States Court of Federal Claims, October 8, 2009
Subjects: Jurisdiction; Breach of trust; Fiduciary accountability; Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The claim over which the United States Court of Federal Claims' subject matter jurisdiction is contested alleges the Government's breach of trust and fiduciary duties in collecting rent owed by a lessee to plaintiff lessors, the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (the “Yakama Nation”) and eighteen individual landowners (together with the Yakama Nation “plaintiffs”).
*Holding: not yet available
Rosales v. United States
2009 WL 3286594
No. 08-512 L, 98-860 L
United States Court of Federal Claims, October 7, 2009
Subjects: Tribal government; Elections; Land tenure; Jamul Indian Village of California -- Trials, litigation, etc.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Two cases before this court, Walter J. Rosales and Karen Toggery v. United States, No. 08-512 L. (“ Rosales X ”), and Walter Rosales, et al. v. United States, No. 98-860 L. (“ Rosales VI ”), arise out of a common set of facts and implicate similar principles of law. For the purposes of judicial economy, the court addresses both cases in this single opinion. Both cases stem from internecine disputes among the members and purported members of the Jamul Indian Village (“Village”), a federally-recognized tribal government. The two complaints before this court, in Rosales VI and Rosales X, represent but the most iterations of plaintiffs' persistent attempts-in the face of repeated dismissals and unfavorable judgments over the course of fifteen years-to invalidate a series of tribal elections and to wrest from the Village the beneficial ownership of two parcels of tribal land. Plaintiffs have litigated or sought to litigate these same and related issues in no fewer than fourteen legal actions brought before tribal tribunals, administrative boards, and federal courts in California and the District of Columbia, all without success.
*Holding: not yet available
Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger
2009 WL 3229758
No. 08-CV-215-B
United States District Court, District of Wyoming, October 6, 2009
Subjects: Taxation; Intergovernmental agreements; Boundaries; Wind River Indian Reservation (Wyo.); Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River, Reservation, Wyoming.
*Synopsis: Plaintiff, the Northern Arapaho Tribe (“NAT”), brings this action seeking injunctive relief against alleged unlawful taxation by the State and County Defendants within the Wind River Indian Reservation (“Reservation”). The NAT rests its assertion of illegal taxation on the boundary descriptions resulting from the July 3, 1868 Treaty of Fort Bridger, 15 Stat. 655, the Lander Purchase Agreement of 1874, 18 Stat. 291, and the Thermopolis Purchase Agreement of 1897, 30 Stat. 93. (Doc. No. 1, Compl.3.) The critical aspect of Plaintiff's allegations is its interpretation of a later surplus land act, the Act of March 3, 1905, ch. 1452, 33 Stat. 1016 (“1905 Act”). The 1905 Act served to codify, with amendments, an April 21, 1904 agreement (“1904 Agreement”), also referred to as the Second McLaughlin Agreement. Both tribes on the Reservation, the EST and Plaintiff, entered into this agreement with James McLaughlin, the United States Indian Inspector for the Reservation, acting on behalf of the United States. 1905 Act, 33 Stat. 1016, 1016. The Court does note, however, the Plaintiff takes the position in this case that it in fact never officially agreed to the 1904 Agreement.
*Holding: not yet available
September
Native Village of Kivalina v. Exxonmobil Corporation
2009 WL 3326113
No. C 08-1138 SBA
United States District Court, N.D. California, September 30, 2009
Subjects: Native Village of Kivalina; Exxon Mobil Corporation; Global warming; Arctic regions; Damages.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff Native Village of Kivalina (the Village) is the governing body of an Inupiat Eskimo village of approximately 400 people who reside in the City of Kivalina (Kivalina), which also is a plaintiff in this action. The Complaint alleges that as a result of global warming, the Arctic sea ice that protects the Kivalina coast from winter storms has diminished, and that the resulting erosion and destruction will require the relocation of Kivalina's residents. As defendants, the Village and Kivalina (collectively, Plaintiffs) have named twenty-four oil, energy and utility companies from whom they seek damages under a federal common law claim of nuisance, based on their alleged contribution to the excessive emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which they claim are causing global warming.
*Holding: not yet available
New York v. Salazar
2009 WL 3165591
No. 6:08-CV-644
United States District Court, N.D. New York, September 29, 2009
Subjects: Land into trust; Oneida
Nation of New York; United States. Dept. of the
Interior.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The above-captioned case is one of several filed in this Court by different plaintiffs raising challenges to various aspects of the DOI's May 20, 2008 Record of Decision. See 5:08-CV-633; 5:08-CV-648; 5:08-CV-649; 6:08-CV-647; 6:08-CV-660. These cases represent only the latest chapter in a long saga of litigation involving the OIN's land claims in New York.
*Holding: not yet available
Town of Verona v. Salazar
2009 WL 3165556
No. 6:08-CV-647
United States District Court, N.D. New York, September 29, 2009
Subjects: Land into trust; Oneida Nation
of New York; United States. Dept. of the Interior.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs filed this action on June 19, 2008, challenging a May 20, 2008 Record of Decision (“ROD”) in which the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”) decided to accept over 13,000 acres of land in central New York into trust for the benefit of the Oneida Indian Nation of New York
*Holding: not yet available
Vacco v. Harrah's Operating Company, Inc.
2009 WL 3164732
No. 07-CV-663
United States District Court, N.D. New York, September 28, 2009
Subjects: Tribes -- Government relations; Tribal government; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, New York.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This case arises in the midst of a long-standing dispute within the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe (“the Tribe”) regarding the system of governance in the Tribe, and the uncertainty by the Executive Branch of the U.S. government as to which system of tribal government it would recognize for purposes of interaction with the U.S. government.
*Holding: not yet available
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan v. Granholm
2009 WL 3125612
No. 05-10296-BC
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, September 28, 2009
Subjects: Jurisdiction; Indian Country (U.S.); Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Saginaw Chippewa's complaint alleges that pursuant to the two treaties, the six townships became “Indian country” subject to the jurisdiction of the Saginaw Chippewa. Am. Cmpl. ¶ 1; [Dkt. # 17]. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, requiring Defendant officials of the State of Michigan (collectively “Michigan” or “Michigan Defendants”) to recognize the six townships as Indian country and “prohibiting [the Michigan Defendants] from enforcing Michigan state law against the [Saginaw Chippewa] and its members within” the six townships.
*Holding: not yet available
Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Salazar
2009 WL 3088798
No. 08cv1544-LAB
United States District Court, S.D. of California, September 25, 2009
Subjects: Indian title; Land titles; Mesa Grande Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Mesa Grande; Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Santa Ysabel Reservation, California; United States. Dept. of the Interior.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This case arises from a dispute between two neighboring Indian tribes over beneficial title to several thousand acres of land in this district. Its origins stretch back over a century. According to the FAC, President Grant issued an executive order setting aside approximately 15,000 acres for Mission Indians in California known as “Santa Ysabel-including Mesa Grande.” In a second order in 1883, President Arthur set aside 120 acres for the “Mesa Grande Indian Reservation.”
*Holding: not yet available
Water Wheel Camp Recreation Area v. LaRance
2009 WL 3089216
No. CV-08-0474-PHX-DGC
United States District Court, Arizona, September 23, 2009
Subjects: Tribal courts; Jurisdiction; Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California; Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs Water Wheel Camp Recreational Area, Inc. and Robert Johnson have been sued for eviction in an action pending in the Tribal Court of the Colorado River Indian Tribes (“CRIT”). Plaintiffs ask this Court to prevent Defendants-a judge and clerk of the Tribal Court-from proceeding with the Tribal Court action. Plaintiffs argue that the Tribal Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 101 S.Ct. 1245, 67 L.Ed.2d 493 (1981). After hearings on two requests for temporary restraining orders, extensive litigation in the Tribal Court and Tribal Court of Appeals, and considerable briefing and oral argument, the Court concludes that the Tribal Court properly exercised jurisdiction over Water Wheel, but not over Robert Johnson. The Court will grant Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief with respect to Mr. Johnson and deny it with respect to Water Wheel.
*Holding: not yet available
Related News Stories: Court speaks: CRIT and Residents see judgment differently (Parker Live) 9/29/09
.
Springer v. Griffin
2009 WL 3052209
No. 4:09CV3166
United States District Court, Nebraska, September 23, 2009
Subjects: Casinos; Indian gaming; Profit-sharing; Revenue sharing; Omaha Tribe of Nebraska.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated federal law when they failed to provide him with his per capita distribution of casino proceeds. ( Id. at CM/ECF pp. 4, 6-9.) Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have control of the Omaha Tribe's financial resources, including “Casino Omaha and Casino Lucky 77.” ( Id. at CM/ECF pp. 4-8.) Omaha tribal members are “entitled” to a portion of the proceeds generated by these casinos and Defendants distribute these proceeds by check. ( Id.) Defendants allegedly distributed at least four of Plaintiff's “entitlement” checks to another “Springer Family” member. ( Id. at CM/ECF pp. 4-5.) Plaintiff seeks monetary relief in an “undetermined” amount for the four checks. ( Id. at CM/ECF pp. 5, 10.) Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief in the form of a temporary restraining order that prevents the “sale of [tribal] land to outside investors.” ( Id.)
*Holding: not yet available
City of Oneida, New York v. Salazar
2009 WL 3055274
No. 5:08-CV-0648
United States District Court, N.D. of New York, September 21, 2009
Subjects: Trust lands; Oneida (N.Y.); Oneida Nation of New York; United States. Dept. of the Interior.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The City of Oneida, New York (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 19, 2008, challenging a May 20, 2008 Record of Decision (“ROD”) in which the United States Department of the Interior (“DOI”) decided to accept approximately 13,000 acres of land in central New York into trust for the benefit of the Oneida Indian Nation (“OIN”). See generally Complaint (Dkt. No. 1). Presently before the Court is a Motion to dismiss two of Plaintiff's claims, filed by Defendants.
*Holding: not yet available
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States
2009 WL 2970498
No. 08-23001-CIV
United States District Court, S.D. Florida, September 16, 2009
Subjects: Florida. Indian Claims Settlement Act; Water leases; Water quality management; Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Miccosukee Tribe claims that Defendants violated the Florida Indian Claims Settlement Act by violating the terms of the Lease. See 25 U.S.C. §§ 1741 et seq. (ratifying the Lease). The stated purpose of the Lease is: “(1) to preserve the Leased Area in its natural state for the use and enjoyment of the Miccosukee Tribe and the general public ... (2) to preserve fresh water aquatic life, wildlife, and their habitat; and (3) to assure proper management of water resources.”
*Holding: not yet available
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. California
2009 WL 2971547
No. CIV. S-04-2265 FCD KJM
United States District Court, E.D. California, September 11, 2009
Subjects: Intergovernmental agreements -- California; Intergovernmental agreements -- Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, California.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Defendants contend that they are likely to succeed on the merits with respect to their questions of “whether it was proper ... for the court to weigh disputed facts in order to determine: (a) that the parties had no common understanding of the meaning of § 4.3 .2.2(a)(1) of Colusa and Picayune's respectie Compacts at the time the Compacts were executed in 1999; and (b) that the 1999 Compact was drafted by the State without negotiation by Colusa and Picayune, and is therefore subject to the doctrine of contra proferentem.” (Def.'s Mot., filed Sept. 1, 2009, at 9.) Defendants also assert, for the very first time, that there was not a sufficient binding agreement between the parties. ( Id. at 12.) Finally, defendants assert that the court's entry of judgment pursuant to the Ninth Circuit's remand order is an “unusual remedy,” which creates an “asymmetrical legal relationship between the 1999 Compact tribes and the State.”
*Holding: not yet available
Hoaglen v. Reinke
2009 WL 2949309
No. CV-08-272-S-BLW
United States District Court, Idaho, September 11, 2009
Subjects: Freedom of religion -- Indian prisoners; Indian prisoners -- Rites and ceremonies -- Protection; Indian prisoners -- Religion -- Protection; United States. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000; Idaho. Dept. of Correction.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs allege that Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) officials have violated their rights under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) by impeding their ability to practice their Native American religions. Complaint, (Docket No. 7), p. 4. Plaintiffs claim that they are being denied the right to engage in religious practices that are central to their religion. They also allege that the IDOC failed to create policies relating to the religious worship rights of Native American inmates. They claim that the failure to create a policy relating to religious worship rights has adversely affected the Native American inmates who are transferred to prisons outside of Idaho. Id. Plaintiffs further allege that IDOC officials are violating the “Brown Consent Decree” which protects the religious worship rights of Native American inmates.
*Holding: not yet available
Russell v. United States
2009 WL 2929426
No. CV-08-8111-PCT-MHM
United States District Court, Arizonia, September 10, 2009
Subjects: Traffic violations; Indian reservation police; Police brutality; Police misconduct; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff, Gregory Russell, is an enrolled member of the Hualapai Indian Tribe. Plaintiff alleges that on May 21, 2006 he was stopped by Hualapai Nation Police Officer Francis Bradley, Jr. for driving recklessly on tribal land. Plaintiff claims that shortly after being placed in handcuffs at the scene of the arrest, Francis Bradley, Sr., Chief of Police of the Hualapai Nation Police Department, and father of the arresting officer, arrived at the scene. According to Plaintiff, officers Bradley, Jr. and Bradley, Sr. physically assaulted Plaintiff before transporting him in a federal BIA vehicle to the Hualapai Nation Police headquarters. After arriving at police headquarters, Hualapai Nation Police Officer Brian Miller allegedly came out of the building to meet the incoming vehicle, which contained Plaintiff, two other detained individuals, Officer Bradley, Jr., and Chief Bradley, Sr. While in custody at the Hualapai Nation Police headquarters, Plaintiff claims that he was again physically assaulted, this time by Hualapai Nation police officers Bradley, Jr., Bradley, Sr., and Miller. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit in federal court against the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2680.
*Holding: not yet available
The Shinnecock Indian Nation v. Kempthorne
2009 WL 2873174
No. 06-CV-5013 (JFB)(ARL)
United States District Court, E.D. of New York, September 9, 2009
Subjects: Federal recognition of Indian tribes; Federal-Indian trust relationship; Shinnecock Indian Nation (N.Y.); United States. Dept. of the Interior; United States. Indian Non-Intercourse Act of 1834.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Shinnecock Indian Nation (hereinafter, the “Nation” or “plaintiff”) commenced this action on September 14, 2006 against defendants Dirk Kempthorne, in his capacity as Secretary of the Department of the Interior, George T. Skibine, in his capacity as Acting Deputy Secretary of the Department of Interior for Policy and Economic Affairs-Indian Affairs, James E. Cason, in his capacity as Associate Deputy Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and the United States Department of the Interior (collectively, “Interior” or “defendants”), pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551, arising from Interior's alleged continuing refusal to acknowledge the federal Indian tribal status of the Nation and to fulfill its trust obligations regarding the Nation's land claim pursuant to the Indian Non-Intercourse Act of 1834 (hereinafter, the “Non-Intercourse Act”), 25 U.S.C. § 177.
*Holding: not yet available
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States
2009 WL 2870094
No. CV-08-1005-PHX-ROS
United States District Court, District of Arizona, September 3, 2009
Subjects: Electric lines -- On Indian reservations; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) On May 30, 2008 the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community and various Community members (Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants) filed a tort class action against the United States and its officers (Defendants/Counterclaimants) relating to the unauthorized presence of federal power lines on Plaintiffs' property, seeking monetary, declaratory and injunctive relief.
*Holding: not yet available
Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma v. Blue Tee Corp
2009 WL 2901191
No. 03-CV-0846-CVE-PJC
United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma, September 2, 2009
Subjects: Sovereignty; Quapaw Tribe of Indians, Oklahoma -- Members.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Defendants collectively assert that the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma (the Tribe) lacks standing to pursue any claim on behalf of its members because the claims asserted in the fifth amended complaint and any respective damages belong exclusively to the individual Tribal members. The Tribe responds that it has parens patriae standing to assert claims to protect its quasi-sovereign interest in the health and well-being of Tribal members, without interfering with the rights of its members to pursue their own claims.
*Holding: not yet available
August
Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States Department of Interior
2009 WL 2746686
No. 08-0316 (JDB)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, August 31, 2009
Subjects: Oil and gas leases -- Royalties; United States. Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; United States. Dept. of the Interior; Merit Energy Company.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff Jicarilla Apache Nation (“Jicarilla”) brings this action against the United States Department of the Interior (the “Department”) and Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior (collectively, “defendants”). The dispute arises from leases Jicarilla entered into with Merit Energy Company (“Merit”) pursuant to the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938 for oil and gas production on Jicarilla's reservation. Audits of these leases performed by the Department's Mineral Management Service (“MMS”) revealed that Merit improperly calculated royalties due to Jicarilla.
*Holding: not yet available
Port of Arlington v. United States Department of the Army
2009 WL 2843184
No. 08-1344-KI
United States District Court, District of Oregon, August 27, 2009
Subjects: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, Oregon; Port of Arlington (Ore.); United States. Army. Corps of Engineers; United States. Federal Water Pollution Control Act; United States. Rivers and Harbors Act.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Port alleges in its First Amended Complaint that the Corps' decision to revoke the Port's Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act permit and to deny the Port's Section 404 Clean Water Act permit is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, and an abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedures Act. Additionally, the Port contends that the decision was outside the Corps' authority and was the result of bias or misunderstanding of the Corps' fiduciary relationship with the Umatilla Tribe.
*Holding: not yet available
Paddy v. Mulkey
2009 WL 2602001
No. 3:08-cv-00236-LRH-RAM
United States District Court, Nevada, August 21, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: (from the opinion)
*Holding: not yet available
Patchak v. Salazar
2009 WL 2576039
No. 08-1331(RJL)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, August 19, 2009
Subjects: Trust lands; Allegan County (Mich.); Jurisdiction; United States. Indian Reorganization Act; United States. Dept. of the Interior; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff David Patchak brings this lawsuit challenging the Secretary of the Interior's (“Secretary” or “United States”) decision to take into trust two parcels of land in Allegan County, Michigan, on behalf of intervenor-defendant Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians (the “Tribe”) pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (“IRA”), 25 U.S.C. § 465. Plaintiff seeks an injunction barring the Secretary from taking the land into trust on the basis that the Tribe was not under Federal jurisdiction in June 1934, as required by the IRA.
*Holding: not yet available
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. California
2009 WL 2475000
No. S-04-2265 FCD KJM
United States District Court, E.D. California, August 11, 2009
Subjects: Indian gaming; Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, California.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Specifically, defendants seek reconsideration of the court's determination of plaintiffs' claims regarding the size of the Gaming Device license pool under the 1999 Compact.
*Holding: not yet available
Liska v. Macarro
2009 WL 2424293
No. 08-CV-1872IEG(POR)
United States District Court, S.D. California, August 5, 2009
Subjects: Disenrollment; Tribal membership disputes; Sovereign immunity; Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation,
California.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Petitioner alleges Respondent was “at all times [a] member[ ] of the General Council of the tribe or [was an] individual who [was] given official authority to cause the banishment of Petitioner,” and that she caused him to be banished “while acting in her official capacity.” Respondent argues that because Petitioner sued her in her official capacity, she is protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
*Holding: not yet available
Anderson & Middleton Company v. Salazar
2009 WL 2424446
No. 3:09-cv-05033-RBL
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, August 4, 2009
Subjects: Tribal property; Acquisition of property; Quinault Tribe of the Quinault Reservation, Washington; United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This case involves the bidding process for the sale of 26 parcels of tribal land owned by individual members of the Quinault Indian Tribe. The question before the Court is whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its management of the bidding process or its subsequent forfeiture of the Quinault Indian Nation's (QIN) deposit and right to purchase certain of the parcels.
*Holding: not yet available
July
New York v. Smith
2009 WL 2390809
No. 08-CV-4422
United States District Court, E.D. New York, July 31, 2009
Subjects: Jurisdiction; Fishing rights; Indians of North America -- Civil rights; Shinnecock Indian Nation (N.Y.).
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Defendant alleges that New York State illegally regulates the Shinnecock and therefore Defendant cannot litigate his civil rights in state court. Defendant also claims that Farrish, by force or threat of force, interfered with Defendant in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(1)(B). Within this section, Defendant claims that his protected rights were violated because of (1) Sovereign Immunity; (2) The Fort Albany Treaty of 1664; (3) Wyandanch's Deed; (4) the Contract Clause; (5) the Indian Commerce Clause; (6) Congressional Indian Policy; (7) Federal Trust and; (8) United Nations' International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
*Holding: not yet available
Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation v. United States
637 F.Supp.2d 25
No. 08-1601 (JDB)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, July 27, 2009
Subjects: Contracts; Health services accessibility; Medical care -- Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; United States. Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act; United States. Indian Health Care Improvement Act.
*Synopsis: Three Indian tribes sued United States, Secretary of Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), Director and Acting Area Director of Indian
Health Service (IHS) in their official capacities alleging that defendants
violated Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) by
declining tribes' proposals for contract support costs (CSC) and provision of
health care services to non-Indians pursuant to Indian Health Care Improvement Act
(IHCIA). Defendants moved to dismiss.
*Holding: The District Court, John D. Bates, J., held that:
(1) other Indian tribes with ongoing ISDEAA contracts were not required parties
to action, and
(2) declination finding issued by Director of IHS fell within waiver of
sovereign immunity in ISDEAA.
Motion denied.
Yellowbear v. Wyoming Attorney General
2009 WL 2207821
No. 06-CV-082-B
United States District Court, Wyoming, July 23, 2009
Subjects: Criminal actions arising in Indian Country (U.S.); Criminal jurisdiction.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Petitioner's first and remaining claim (Claims 2 and 3 were voluntarily dismissed) is that the State lacks jurisdiction over the crime for which he was convicted, and that as a result, the state court decision regarding jurisdiction was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Petitioner contends that the Wyoming Supreme Court “erroneously” determined the question of whether his crime occurred in Indian country and whether the State lacked jurisdiction.
*Holding: not yet available
Greene v. Skibine
2009 WL 2208129
No. 1:09-cv-1022 AWI GSA
United States District Court, E.D California, July 23, 2009
Subjects: Tribal membership disputes; Heritage; Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff, is seeking judicial review of a final administrative decision dated April 23, 2009, from the United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”), based on the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). See, Ex. A-1; 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706. Plaintiff is an African American male who alleges that he is a true descendant of a legal tribal member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. He alleges that he was denied membership in the tribe because he could not connect back to a direct ancestor enrolled by blood. Plaintiff has attempted to become a recognized tribe member since at least 1999. He asserts that the failure to be recognized as a tribe member is discriminatory and is a violation 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
*Holding: not yet available
Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
258 F.R.D. 472
No. 05-cv-329-GKF-PJC
United States District Court, N.D Oklahoma, July 22, 2009
Subjects: Poultry industry -- Oklahoma; Pollution -- Illinois River Watershed (Ark. and Okla.); Oklahoma; Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma; Tyson (Firm).
*Synopsis: State of Oklahoma brought action seeking monetary damages and
injunctive relief against poultry producers for injury caused to the river
watershed by producers' practice of storing and disposing of hundreds of thousands
of tons of poultry waste on lands within the watershed. Producers filed motion to
dismiss for failure to join Indian nation as a required party or in the
alternative, motion for judgment on the pleadings.
*Holding:The District Court, Gregory K. Frizzell, J., held that non-party
Indian tribe was an indispensable party whose joinder was not feasible, thus
warranting dismissal of state's action.
Related News Stories: Poultry lawsuit is partially dismissed (The Tulsa World) 7/23/09
Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States
88 Fed.Cl. 1
No. 02-25L
United States Court of Federal Claims, July 21, 2009
Subjects: Discovery (Law); Tribal trust funds; Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought action against United States seeking accounting
and recovery of monetary loss and damages resulting from government's alleged
mismanagement of trust funds. Tribe moved to compel discovery and for protective
order, and United States moved to compel.
*Holding: The United States Court of Federal Claims, Allegra, J., held that:
(1) communications between United States agencies and attorneys regarding Indian
trust accounts were subject to fiduciary exception to attorney-client privilege;
(2) United States did not waive work product objection to documents prepared by
Department of Interior's Solicitor's Office;
(3) communications between Solicitor's Office or Department of Justice and
accounting firm hired to conduct financial and compliance audits of Bureau of
Indian Affairs' (BIA) Office of Trust Funds Management were protected by work
product doctrine;
(4) document recommending that particular strategies for investing tribal trust
funds be adopted in response to litigation was not protected by work product
doctrine; and
(5) evidence of tribe's non-trust investment patterns was not relevant in
determining whether United States had breached its fiduciary duties.
Motions granted in part and denied in part.
Preservation of Los Olivos v. United States Department of Interior
635 F.Supp.2d 1076
No. 06-1502 AHM (CTx)
United States District Court, C.D. California, July 8, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: In citizens' groups' action for review of two orders of the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) which dismissed their appeal from a Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) decision approving an Indian tribe's application to have land taken into federal trust, and for injunctive relief against enforcement of the order approving the tribe's application, groups moved for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, A. Howard Matz, J., held that:
(1) Court had jurisdiction to evaluate whether citizens' groups had standing to
seek judicial review of IBIA's orders;
(2) groups demonstrated injury in fact;
(3) groups had an interest directly regulated by an action of the IBIA, as
required to have prudential standing; and
(4) IBIA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in invoking judicial standing
principles to dismiss groups' appeal.
Motion granted in part and denied in part.
Nisqually Indian Tribe v. Gregoire
2009 WL 2029788
No. C08-5069RBL
United States District Court, W.D. of Washington, July 8, 2009
Subjects: Taxation -- Intergovernmental agreements; Intergovernmental agreements -- Washington (State); Nisqually Indian Tribe of the Nisqually Reservation, Washington; Squaxin Island Tribe of the Squaxin Island Reservation, Washington; Frank's Landing Indian Community.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The entry into the intergovernmental agreement by Frank's Landing, and the assertion of taxing authority by the Squaxin Island Tribe at Frank's Landing do not violate federal law. A. Congress has not declared the Frank's Landing Indian Community to Be a “Tribal-free” Zone.
*Holding: not yet available
Lil' Brown Smoke Shack v. Wasden
2009 WL 2044409
No. CV 09-044-CWD
United States District Court, Idaho, July 7, 2009
Subjects: Sovereign immunity -- Indian business enterprises; Idaho. Minors' Access Act; Tobacco -- Law and legislation -- Idaho; Lil' Brown Smoke Shack; Younger v. Harris.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Defendants argue that the State of Idaho's interest in regulating tobacco and preventing minors' access to tobacco are important state interests that justify abstention under Younger. Plaintiff makes two arguments in response: 1) Defendants have not established an important state interest in enforcement of the permitting provisions of the Act; and 2) the jurisdictional question of whether the state has authority to enforce the Act against businesses located on tribal lands outside of the state is a question of federal law and should be decided by the federal court.
*Holding: not yet available
June
Harris v. Sycuan Band of Diegueno Mission Indians
2009 WL 1883674
No. 08cv2111 WQH
United States District Court, S.D of California, June, 30, 2009
Subjects: Arbitration and award; Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation (formerly the Sycuan Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California).
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This case simply requests that the Court enforce an arbitration award. The FAC, on its face, does not require an interpretation the IGRA or any other federal law in order to determine whether enforcement of the arbitration award is proper. The FAC, on its face, does not require resolution of a substantial issue of federal law in order to resolve the matter.
*Holding: not yet available
Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California
2009 WL 1855332
No. C 09-1471 CW
United States District Court, N.D of California, June, 29, 2009
Subjects: Sovereign immunity; Bad faith (Law); United States. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; California; Big Lagoon Rancheria, California.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Defendant State of California moves for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that it is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity from Plaintiff Big Lagoon Rancheria's claim for bad faith negotiation under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721. Big Lagoon opposes the motion, arguing that California has waived its sovereign immunity pursuant to statute or, alternatively, as part of an earlier settlement agreement with Big Lagoon. The matter was heard on June 25, 2009. Having considered oral argument and all of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court denies the motion.
*Holding: not yet available
Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, LTD.
2009 WL 1796808
No. CV-04-256-LRS
United States District Court, E.D of Washington, June, 19, 2009
Subjects: Hazardous wastes -- Washington (State); Liability for environmental damages; Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake (Wash.); United States. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) In its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint of the Tribes (Ct. Rec 194), Defendant Teck asserts two CERCLA counterclaims against the Tribes, contending the Tribes caused and contributed to the hazardous substances contamination of Lake Roosevelt. As part of its counterclaims against the Tribes for cost recovery, contribution and declaratory relief, Teck alleges the Tribes “are covered ‘persons' within the meaning of that term as it is used in CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601(21).” The Tribes move to dismiss the counterclaims, asserting they are not “person[s]” subject to liability under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. Section 9607(a), and therefore, that Teck's counterclaims are not based on “a cognizable legal theory.”
*Holding: not yet available
Related News Stories: Court ruling exempts tribes from CERCLA liability (Northwest Hub) 9/2/09. Washington court rules tribes are not "persons" under CERCLA (Northwest Indian Law & Business Advisor) 6/20/09.
In the matter of the adoption OF C.D.K.
2009 WL 1743765
No. 2:08-CV-490 TS
United States District Court, Utah, June 18, 2009
Subjects: Parent and child (Law); Trials (Custody of children) -- Utah; Adoption; United States. Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Petitioner filed her Petition to Invalidate Adoption, pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (the “ICWA”), on June 2, 2008. Petitioner requested that the Court invalidate the adoption of her biological child by Respondents under § 1914, which provides that “any parent ... from whose custody such [Indian] child was removed ... may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate such action upon a showing [the relevant placement proceedings] violated any provision of sections 1911, 1912, and 1913 of this title.” Petitioner also requested that the Court immediately return the child to her custody.
*Holding: not yet available
Attorney's Process and Investigation Services, Inc. v. Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa
2009 WL 1783497
No. 05-CV-168-LRR
United States District Court, N.D of Iowa, June, 18, 2009
Subjects: Breach of contract; Arbitration (Administrative law); Sac & Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa; Attorney's Process & Investigation Services, Inc.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) On October 21, 2005, API filed a Complaint (docket no. 2) in this court. The Complaint alleges the Tribe, acting under the leadership of the Bear Council, breached a contract and asks the court to bar the Tribe's lawsuit in the Tribal Court. Additionally, API asks the court to compel arbitration.
*Holding: not yet available
Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma v. Combs
2009 WL 1752412
No. Civ-09-0091-F
United States District Court, W.D of Oklahoma, June, 18, 2009
Subjects: Sovereign immunity -- Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Jurisdiction -- Oklahoma; Thunderbird Entertainment Center, Inc.; Liability (Law); Drunk driving.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) In this action the Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma and the Thunderbird Entertainment Center, Inc., a corporation allegedly organized under the laws of the Tribe and owned by the Tribe, ask this court to enjoin proceedings in a civil state-court action currently pending before Judge Douglas Combs in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, State of Oklahoma, as Bittle v. Bahe, CJ-2005-1249. The complaint also seeks certain declarations.
*Holding: not yet available
Gustafson v. Poitra
2009 WL 1688192
No. 4:09-cv-016
United States District Court, of N. Dakota, June, 17, 2009
Subjects: Fee lands -- Indian Country (U.S.); Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation (N.D.); Rolette County (N.D.).
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Before the Court is the Plaintiff's “Motion for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order” filed on April 8, 2009, and a request for a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin and restrain the Defendants, and any person or entities acting in concert with or on behalf of the Defendants, from interfering with the Plaintiff's access to and possession of fee land located in Rolette County, North Dakota, within the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation.
*Holding: not yet available
The Osage Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma v. United States
87 Fed.Cl. 338
No. 99-550 L, 00-169 L
United States Court of Federal Claims, June, 12, 2009
Subjects: Photocopying services -- Costs; Trusts and trustees; Osage Nation, Oklahoma (formerly the Osage Tribe); United States. National Archives and Records Administration.
*Synopsis:Indian tribe brought suit against the United States seeking damages
for breach of fiduciary duty by mismanaging tribal trust funds and failing to
account. Tribe moved to compel government to pay for copying and imaging costs in
second phase of discovery.
*Holding: The Court of Federal Claims, Hewitt, Chief Judge, held that equities
weighed in favor of requiring government to pay copying expenses for production of
documents.
Motion granted.
Related News Stories: Reservation still intact: Osages seek to reverse District Court ruling (Targeted News Service) 7/27/09
Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. Salazar
624 F.Supp.2d 103
No. 06-830
United States District Court, District of Columbia, June, 12, 2009
Subjects: Tribal trust funds; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; United States. Dept. of the Interior; Salazar, Ken.
*Synopsis: Federally recognized Indian tribe brought action seeking review of
the Interior Board of Indian Appeals' (IBIA) application of a formula used to
distribute funds to certain tribes. Parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Gladys Kessler, J., held that:
(1) non-party Indian tribes were indispensable;
(2) IBIA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in its use of 1988 data for
application of the funding formula agreed to in tribal resolution; and
(3) tribe was collaterally estopped from litigating the effect of prior
administrative decision on the funding formula.
Defendant's motion granted.
In the matter of the adoption of C.D.K.
2009 WL 1586659
No. 2:08-CV-490 TS
United States District Court, Utah, June, 4, 2009
Subjects: Parent and child (Law); Trials (Custody of children) -- Utah; Adopted Indian children; Heritage; United States. Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Petitioner claims that, as a matter of law, C.D.K. is an Indian Child, as defined by the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”, and that the Relinquishment Hearing did not comply with the requirements of the ICWA. Respondents, the adoptive parents, argue in their Motion that Petitioner has failed to establish that C.D.K. is an Indian Child. Because the Court finds that Petitioner has provided sufficient evidence to establish that C .D.K. is an Indian Child pursuant to the ICWA and that the Relinquishment Hearing did not comply with the procedural requirements of the ICWA, the Court will grant Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Respondents' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
*Holding: not yet available
Native American Art, Inc. v. Mangalick Enterprises, Inc.
2009 WL 1543734
No. 08-cv-4464
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, June 2, 2009
Subjects: Indian art -- Forgeries.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff, Native American Arts, Inc. (“NAA”), filed this lawsuit on August 7, 2008. NAA's complaint comprises a single count and names only Defendant, Mangalick Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a IAC International (“Mangalick”). According to the complaint, Mangalick is violating the Act by selling inauthentic Indian goods in a manner that falsely suggests that they are authentic. Currently before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss, which seeks to curtail Plaintiff's lawsuit on a number of constitutional and procedural grounds. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 and 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a), the Government intervened to defend the constitutionality of the Act. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is denied.
*Holding: not yet available
May
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma v. Kempthorne
2009 WL 1505558
No. 08-355-JHP
United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma, May 28, 2009
Subjects: Health services -- United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians of Oklahoma; Contracts.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) [A]n action by the Tribe seeking a declaratory judgment that the Defendants violated their statutory requirement (1) to obtain the Tribe's authorization prior to entering a contract for health services with the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (an entity not organized under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act), (2) to provide meaningful consultation to the Tribe pursuant to their general trust responsibilities and applicable law, and (3) to assure services to all tribal members in the service area of the health service contract at issue herein.
*Holding: not yet available
Nahno-Lopez v. Houser
2009 WL 1469667
No. CIV-08-1147-F
United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma, May 20, 2009
Subjects: Trespass; Trust lands -- Indian Country (U.S.); Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The complaint alleges generally that all of the plaintiffs' property (including both the Kerchee Plaintiffs' land and the Pence Plaintiffs' leasehold) lies within Allotment No. 2329, to the west and south of the Fort Sill Apache Tribe's casino. Plaintiffs allege that defendants have acted outside their authority, in violation of federal statutes, “by trespassing, hindering access, encroaching, detaining and destroying the Kerchee and Pence Plaintiff(s)' federal trust property.” The complaint seeks relief “from the intentional and egregious actions of the Defendants in their continuing trespass, interference with exclusive use, occupancy, illegal detention, encroachment and destruction of the Kerchee and Pence Plaintiff(s)' lands” included in Allotment No. 2329. The complaint alleges that defendants “continue to invade and hinder the ability of the Plaintiff's [sic] to access their lands and continue to interfere in the quiet enjoyment and occupancy of said lands by the Plaintiffs.
*Holding: not yet available
Miner v. Standing Rock Sioux Tribe
2009 WL 1393623
No. 1:08-cv-105
United States District Court, North Dakota, May 20, 2009
Subjects: Jurisdiction -- Tribes; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota -- Officials and employees; Judges.
*Synopsis: Former Chief Judge of Indian tribal court filed declaratory judgment
action seeking declaration that tribal court had jurisdiction over her breach of
contract, wrongful discharge, and Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) claims.
Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, and plaintiff moved for summary
judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) diversity jurisdiction was not present, and
(2) complaint failed to raise a federal question.
White Body v. Mukasey
614 F.Supp.2d 978
No. 4:08-cv-101, 4:06-cr-033
United States District Court, North Dakota, May 15, 2009
Subjects: Trials (Sex
crimes); Double jeopardy; Tribal courts.
*Synopsis: Defendant, who was Indian tribe member, pled guilty to two counts of sexual abuse and was sentenced to 70-month's imprisonment. Defendant moved to vacate.
*Holding: The District Court, Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) defendant was not entitled to equitable tolling of one-year limitations
period for filing motion to vacate, and
(2) double jeopardy principles were not offended by defendant's successive
prosecutions in both tribal and federal court.
Motion denied.
Bolssen v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
2009 WL 1307781
No. 09-C-202
United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin, May 7, 2009
Subjects: United States. Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974; Retirement
planning; Casinos -- Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
-- Officials and employees; Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
-- Officials and employees -- Defined; Beneficiaries;
Breach of contract -- UNUM Life Insurance Company of America.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Unum asserts that the fact Bolssen was employed by the tribe is not dispositive of whether the plan is a governmental plan which would take it outside of ERISA. In support of this argument, Unum notes that Bolssen was actually employed by the Oneida Tribe's casino and his janitorial duties at the casino were commercial activities and not essential governmental functions. Unum also contends that ERISA governs as the plan itself provides that it was governed by ERISA, and because Unum administered Bolssen's claim in accordance with ERISA.
*Holding: not yet available
Fort Independence Indian Community v. California
2009 WL 1283146
No. S-08-432 LKK/KJM
United States District Court, E.D. California, May 7, 2009
Subjects: Indian
gaming -- Fort
Independence Indian Community of Paiute Indians of the Fort Independence
Reservation, California; Gambling on Indian reservations -- California;
Indian gaming -- Intergovernmental agreements;
Negotiation -- California; United States. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act;
Good faith (Law).
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff Fort Independence Indian Community, a federally recognized tribe, brings suit against the State of California and associated defendants alleging that defendants have violated their obligation to negotiate a Tribal-State Compact in good faith.
*Holding: not yet available
Leonard v. Eastern Illinois University
614 F.Supp.2d 918
No. 07-CV-2172
United States District Court, C.D of Illinois, May 4, 2009
Subjects: Indians of North America -- Promotions; Amnesia; Head
Injuries, Closed; Eastern Illinois University -- Officials and employees -- Promotions ;
United States. Civil Rights Act of 1964; Indians
as mascots.
*Synopsis: Native-American employee of state university, who suffered from retrograde amnesia as result of severe closed head injury and worked as building service worker until he resigned, filed suit alleging he was denied promotion to Building Services Subforeman in retaliation for activity protected under Title VII. University moved for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Michael P. McCuskey, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) employee engaged in statutorily protected activity when he went to
university's internal civil rights office and filed complaint about shirts worn by
two interviewers which contained likeness of sports team mascot that he felt was
derogatory toward Native Americans, but
(2) employee's failure to successfully interview for promotion was not a
materially adverse employment action.
Motion granted.
In re Fess
408 B.R. 793
No. 06-11890
United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin, May 4, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: Chapter 7 trustee moved to compel turnover of future per capita payments to which Chapter 7 debtor was entitled, as member of Indian tribe, from tribe's casino gambling operations.
*Holding: The Bankruptcy Court, Robert D. Martin, J., held that:
(1) tribal law, under which members of Indian tribe had no right, title,
interest or entitlement to per capita payments from tribe's casino operations
until payment was received, rather than Wisconsin state law, governed interest
that bankrupt tribal member had in future per capita payments at time petition was
filed, and
(2) prior order of bankruptcy court, that was entered based on debtor's default
and that directed Indian tribe of which debtor was member to turn over to trustee
per capita payments from tribe's casino operations, was not law of the case.
Motion denied.
April
United States v. Duro
2009 WL 1653548
No. EDCV 07-01309-SGL
United States District Court, C.D. California, April 30, 2009
Subjects: Mobile home parks -- On Indian reservations; Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, California (formerly the Torres-Martinez Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of California).
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) On October 7, 2007, the government filed a complaint against Harvey Duro, Sr., and Desert Mobilehome Park, Inc. (“the Park”), seeking injunctive relief, money damages, and “such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate.” The complaint alleged a violation of the Court-approved Stipulation that settled the parties' prior case ( United States v. Harvey Duro. Sr., ED CV 03-0754 RT (SGLx) (“ Duro I ”)): failure to obtain a lease in violation of 25 U.S.C. § 415; public nuisance; and private nuisance.
*Holding: not yet available
Sweet v. Hinzman
2009 WL 1175647
No. C08-844JLR
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, April 30, 2009
Subjects: Disenrollment; Tribal membership disputes -- Snoqualmie Tribe (Wash.); Exile (Punishment); Notice (Law); Habeas corpus; United States. Indian Civil Rights Act.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Petitioners seek relief against Respondents for three violations of ICRA that they allege occurred when Respondents banished Petitioners from the Tribe on April 27, 2008:(1) denial of due process for banishment without adequate formal notice and without an opportunity for a hearing; (2) denial of equal protection for banishment without equal application of the laws; and (3) denial of the right to confront and offer witnesses for banishment without the opportunity to confront opposing witnesses and offer favorable witnesses. Petitioners raise these claims in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was filed in May 2008. Petitioners seek an order setting aside and vacating the banishment, and restoring to Petitioners such rights as they had prior to the initiation of the banishment action on April 8, 2008.
*Holding: not yet available
Related News Stories: Judge rules for banished tribe members (Star.com) 5/7/09.
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan v. Granholm
2009 WL 1285846
No.05-10296-BC
United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, April 29, 2009
Subjects: Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan,
Isabella Reservation; Indian Country (U.S.) -- Defined; Law -- Michigan --
Application -- Indian Country (U.S.); Treaties -- Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe
of Michigan.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The amended complaint seeks to enforce rights under the 1855 and 1864 treaties, including limiting Defendants from asserting criminal or civil regulatory jurisdiction over the Saginaw Chippewa, or interfering with their rights under federal law relating to Indian County. Defendants contend that the treaties entered in 1855 and 1864 between the “Chippewa of Saginaw” and the United States did not establish a reservation.
*Holding: not yet available
Elk v. United States
87 Fed.Cl. 70
No. 05-186L
United States Court of Federal Claims, April 28, 2009
Subjects: Fort Laramie, Treaty of, 1851; Personal injuries – Cases; Sexual harassment; Indian high school students; United States. Army.
*Synopsis: Member of Oglala Sioux Tribe who had been sexually assaulted by Army
officer sued United States seeking relief under Article I clause of Sioux Treaty
of April 29, 1868, which provided that if "bad men" among the whites committed any
wrong upon person or property of any Sioux, United States would reimburse injured
person for loss sustained. The Court of Federal Claims, 70 Fed.Cl. 405, denied
government's motion to dismiss for lack of administrative exhaustion.
*Holding: Following trial, the Court of Federal Claims, Allegra, J., held that:
(1) potential recovery under "bad men" clause extended beyond repayment of
out-of-pocket expenses, to lost income, pain, suffering and mental anguish;
(2) evidence supported finding that tribe member had suffered post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD) as result of sexual assault;
(3) tribe member was entitled to recover costs for weekly psychotherapy and
monthly pharmacologic management;
(4) tribe member was entitled to future lost income, discounted at rate of 12%;
and
(5) tribe member was entitled to recover pain, suffering and emotional distress
damages of $250,000.
Judgment for claimant.
Related News Stories: A Lakota warrior woman wins in court (Rapid City Journal) 5/9/09. Judge rules treaty obligations include reimbursement for pain and suffering (Rapid City Journal.com) 4/30/09.
Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C v. Stidham
609 F.Supp.2d 1211
No. 09-CV-095-TCK-PJC
United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma, April 24, 2009
Subjects: Leadership disputes; Cooperative agreements; Lawyers -- Fees; Thlopthlocco Tribal Town, Oklahoma; Jurisdiction -- Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma; Tribal courts -- Muscogee (Creek) Nation, Oklahoma.
*Synopsis: Law firm that represented Indian tribe in tribal court brought action against tribal court judge, seeking a judgment declaring that tribal court did not have jurisdiction over firm, did not have jurisdiction over tribe's expenditure of its governmental funds to firm, did not have jurisdiction over agreements entered between tribe and firm, and did not have jurisdiction to order firm to return all attorney fees paid from tribal treasury. Law firm moved for preliminary injunction, and judge moved to dismiss.
*Holding: The District Court, Terence Kern, J., held that:
(1) judge did not have judicial immunity;
(2) judge did not have tribal sovereign immunity;
(3) joinder rule did not require dismissal of the action;
(4) venue in the District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma was proper;
(5) firm satisfied requirements for a preliminary injunction; and
(6) bond was not required in connection with issuance of the preliminary injunction.
Judge's motion denied, and law firm's motion granted.
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin v. Salazar
2009 WL 1110409
No. 08-CV-659-BBC
United States District Court, W.D. Wisconsin, April 24, 2009
Subjects: United States. Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Tribal schools -- Costs; School management and organization – Tribes – United States; Public contracts – United States; Government aid to education – United States.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 25 U.S.C. § 450j-1(f), in which plaintiff Lac Courte Oreilles asks this court to bar defendants Ken Salazar, George Skibine, Kevin Skenandore and Lynn Lafferty from enforcing a bill for collection issued by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or pursuing any future right or remedy related to any disallowance of costs associated with the Single Agency audit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005
*Holding: not yet available
Cachil Dehe Band of Wintum Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. California
2009 WL 1084830
No. S-04-2265 FCD KJM
United States District Court, E.D of California, April 22, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) On October 25, 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint in this court, alleging violations of the Compact. Plaintiff asserts that defendants violated the Compact by: (1) excluding the Tribe from participating in the third priority tier in the December 19, 2003 round of draws; (2) unilaterally determining the number of Gaming Device licenses authorized by § 4.3.2.2(a)(1) of the Compact; (3) failing to refund money paid pursuant to the non-refundable one-time pre-payment fee set forth in § 4.3.2.2(e) of the Compact; (4) CGCC conducting rounds of draws of Gaming Device licenses without authority; and (5) failing to negotiate in good faith.
*Holding: not yet available
Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. Salazar
2009 WL 1066299
No. C 08-02846 SI
United States District Court, N.D. California, April 21, 2009
Subjects: Land into trust; Indian gaming -- Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, California; Gambling on Indian reservations -- California.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This case concerns an action taken by officials of the United States Department of the Interior (“Secretary”). On April 18, 2008, the Secretary approved an application by the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria (“the Tribe”) to accept a 254-acre parcel of land (“the parcel”) near the City of Rohnert Park, California into trust.
*Holding: not yet available
Butte County, California v. Hogen
609 F.Supp.2d 20
No. Civ. 08-00519(HHK)
United States District Court District of Columbia, April 13, 2009
Subjects: Butte County (Calif.); Indian gaming --
Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California; Gambling on Indian reservations
-- California; National Indian Gaming Commission (U.S.); United States. Dept.
of the Interior; Gambling – Law and legislation -- Mechoopda Indian Tribe of
Chico Rancheria, California; Land into trust.
*Synopsis: County brought action against members of National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) and Department of Interior, challenging agency decisions concerning intervening tribe, in which decisions NIGC approved gaming ordinance enacted by tribe pursuant to Indian Gaming Restoration Act (IGRA) and department took parcel of land in county into trust on behalf of tribe pursuant to Indian Restoration Act (IRA). Defendants moved to dismiss and county cross-moved for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., J., held that:
(1) county had Article III standing to challenge decisions;
(2) parcel qualified as restoration of lands under IGRA; and
(3) NIGC and department considered all necessary factors and gave explanation permitting rational understanding of decision.
Defendants' motion granted and county's motion denied.
Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W Enterprises, Inc.
2009 WL 973187
No. Civ. 07-5024-KES
United States District Court, District of South Dakota, April 7, 2009
Subjects: Tribal trust funds -- Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Roads -- Contracts -- Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Jurisdiction -- States; Arbitration (Administrative law); Attachment and garnishment.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff, Oglala Sioux Tribe (the Tribe), moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent defendant, C & W Enterprises, Inc. (C & W), from imposing an execution and levy on tribal funds held by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the South Dakota Department of Revenue, and First National Bank of Gordon, Nebraska, on March 25, 2009. The court granted the Tribe's TRO motion the same day. Upon the court's request, the parties briefed the issues of jurisdiction, abstention, and the merits. An evidentiary hearing on the preliminary injunction request was held on April 3, 2009. Upon consideration of the parties' arguments, the court finds that the Anti-Injunction Act and principles of the Younger abstention prevent the court from enjoining C & W from executing and levying on tribal funds.
*Holding: not yet available
Related News Stories: Oglala Sioux Tribe hit with levy in immunity case (Indianz.com) 4/21/09
March
Yankton Sioux Tribe Head Start Concerned Parents v. Longview Farms, LLP
2009 WL 891866
No. Civ. 08-4058
United States District Court, South Dakota, March 31, 2009
Subjects: Longview Farms, LLP; Swine farrowing facilities; Environmental impact analysis; Environmental impact statements; United States. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; United States. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; Constitutional law -- United States; Constitutional law -- Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota ; United States. Administrative Procedure Act; United States. Clean Air Act; United States. Federal Water Pollution Control Act; Indian Country (U.S.) -- Defined.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against Defendant alleging that Defendant violated various federal regulations and asking for an injunction ordering Defendant to cease constructing its farrowing operation. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that: (1) Defendant's farrowing operation was not presented to the Yankton Sioux Tribe for consideration in accordance with the Yankton Sioux Constitution Article 1. section 1; (2) Defendant violated the National Environmental Protection Act by failing to provide an environmental impact statement and by failing to provide for public participation and appeals prior to construction of the facility; (3) Defendant violated the National Historic Preservation Act by failing to ascertain the presence of historic and cultural resources which could be affected by the facility's construction and operation on a cultural and historic site; (4) Defendant violated the Administrative Procedures Act by failing to provide for public participation and appeals prior to the construction of the farrowing facility; (5) Defendant's actions violate Article VI of the United States Constitution; and (6) Defendant is in violation of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.
*Holding: not yet available
Moss v. Bossman
2009 WL 891867
No. Civ. 08-4085
United States District Court, South Dakota, March 31, 2009
Subjects: Longview Farms, LLP; Swine farrowing facilities; Law -- Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota -- Application -- Non-Indians; Exclusion, Right of.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiffs contest the following efforts by Defendants to assert tribal jurisdiction over non-member Defendants and over the farrowing confinement unit that Plaintiffs were constructing on land outside the boundaries of the Yankton Sioux Reservation: (1) a petition filed by Yankton Sioux Tribe against Plaintiffs and the employees, agents, representatives, contractors, and vendors of Longview Farm, LLP, for an ex parte emergency exclusion and removal order which was granted ex parte by the Honorable William Bossman, Chief Judge, Yankton Sioux Tribal Court; (2) an action initiated in Yankton Sioux Tribal Court by Defendant, Director of the Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance Commission, Leonard R. Heth, claiming at least Three Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand Dollars ($355,000.00) in tribal sanctions since April 7, 2008, and expressly directing Plaintiffs to stop all operations with respect to the farrowing confinement unit; and (3) a pro se petition filed by Adelberto Michael Zephier, Jr. against “Lyndon Moss and fellow Investors of Longview Farms, LLC and Castle Construction,” praying for an “Injunction to Stop All further construction of the buildings at Longview Farms (sic) jobsite.”
*Holding: not yet available
Jicarilla Apache Nation v. United States Department of Interior
2009 WL 837699
No. 07-803(RJL)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, March 31, 2009
Subjects: Jicarilla Apache Nation, New Mexico; United States. Administrative Procedure Act; United States. Minerals Management Service; Natural gas -- Royalties.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe moved for summary judgment in its action alleging that
Department of the Interior (DOI) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
by rejecting use of a "major portion" analysis methodology to calculate natural
gas royalties owed the tribe.
*Holding: The District Court, Richard J. Leon, J., held that:
(1) DOI's failure to explicitly discuss and explain its departure from previous
decisions did not render decision arbitrary and capricious;(2) DOI's decision was entitled to deference; and
(3) DOI did not violate its fiduciary duty to tribe.
Motion denied.
Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota
2009 WL 874002
No. Civ. 07-4040
United States District Court, South Dakota, March 30, 2009
Subjects: Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; United States. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Intergovernmental agreements -- Indian gaming -- Class III; Equality before the law; South Dakota.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Tribe alleges that the State has violated various provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to negotiate in good faith with the Tribe for purposes of entering into a Tribal-State compact for conducting class III gaming on the Tribe's reservation. The Tribe also asserts state and federal equal protection claims, alleging that the defendants give preferential treatment to gaming operators other than the Tribe.
*Holding: not yet available
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States
2009 WL 874011
No. 08-354C
United States Court of Federal Claims, March 30, 2009
Subjects: United States. Western Area Power Administration; Breach of contract -- United States; Servitudes -- Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Electric lines -- On Indian reservations.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe and its individual members brought putative class
action
against the United States, asserting claims sounding in tort for trespass
and
nuisance, and seeking money damages from the Western Area Power
Administration
(WAPA) for breach of a contract and grant of easement. Government moved to
dismiss.
*Holding:The Court of Federal Claims, Horn, J., held that:
(1) Contract Disputes Act's (CDA) six-year statute of limitations did not
apply,
and
(2) parties' contract and grant of easement was covered by the CDA, and,
thus,
CDA was money-mandating statute required for Court of Federal Claims to
assert
Tucker Act jurisdiction over the action.
Motion denied.
Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States
2009 WL 805609
No. 08-72L
United States Court of Federal Claims, March 25, 2009
Subjects: United States. Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act; Land tenure -- Hoopa Valley Tribe, California; Land tenure -- Yurok Tribe of the Yurok Reservation, California; Tribal trust funds.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought action against the United States, challenging
government's distribution of money from a trust created under the Hoopa-Yurok
Settlement Act to resolve longstanding issues regarding ownership, management, and
revenue-sharing of a former joint reservation inhabited by two tribes. Government
filed third party complaint against the other tribe, seeking judgment against that
tribe if it were found liable for mistakenly disbursing the funds. Plaintiff tribe
moved for partial summary judgment, government moved to dismiss or for summary
judgment, and defendant tribe moved to dismiss or for summary judgment.
*Holding: The Court of Federal Claims, Wheeler, J., held that plaintiff tribe
lacked standing to challenge distribution to defendant tribe.
Plaintiff tribe's motion denied, government's motion granted, and defendant
tribe's motion dismissed.
White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians v. County of Hahnomen, Minnesota
2009 WL 805609
No. 07-3962
United States District Court, D. Minnesota, March 25, 2009
Subjects: White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians; Taxation -- Law and legislation -- Hahnomen County (Minn.) -- Application -- Indian Country (U.S.); Real property tax.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief and for money damages in response to the Defendants' alleged unlawful actions to assess and collect property taxes under state authority upon tribally owned lands located within the exterior boundaries of the White Earth Band Reservation.
*Holding: not yet available
Oglala Sioux Tribe v. C & W Enterprises, Inc.
2009 WL 803625
No. 07-5024-KES
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, March 25, 2009
Subjects: Mining leases -- Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Roads -- Contracts -- Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Sand and gravel plants -- Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, South Dakota; Arbitration (Administrative law); Attachment and garnishment.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff, Oglala Sioux Tribe, moves for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the execution and levy of tribal funds held by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the South Dakota Department of Revenue, and First National Bank of Gordon, Nebraska. The Oglala Sioux Tribe served the motion on defendant, C & W Enterprises, Inc. (C & W Enterprises), which has not responded. The Oglala Sioux Tribe's request for a TRO is granted.
*Holding: not yet available
Pelt v. Utah
2009 WL 803115
No. 2:92-CV-639-TX
United States District Court, D. Utah, March 25, 2009
Subjects: Navajo Indians -- San Juan County (Utah); Utah; Class actions (Civil procedure); Trusts and trustees -- Accounting -- Utah; Oil and gas leases -- Royalties; Breach of trust; Fiduciary accountability.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Beneficiaries of the Navajo Trust Fund ("NTF" or "Trust Fund") filed this class action against the NTF trustee, Defendant State of Utah, seeking relief for alleged mismanagement of Trust Fund monies. They seek an equitable accounting of Trust Fund income and expenditures and replenishment of Trust Fund resources lost through any proven breach of fiduciary duty.
*Holding: not yet available
White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians v. County of Mahnomen, Minnesota
605 F.Supp.2d 1034
No. 07-3962
United States District Court, D. Minnesota, March 24, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: Indian tribe that owned casino brought action against county and county officials, alleging that the collection of real property taxes on casino property was unlawful, and seeking a refund of such taxes. County moved to dismiss certain claims on sovereign immunity grounds, and parties cross-moved for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) money damages claim was barred by Eleventh Amendment;
(2) claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were not barred by the Eleventh
Amendment;
(3) District Court would not abstain under Younger;
(4) District Court would not abstain under Colorado River; and
(5) White Earth Lands Settlement Act (WELSA) precluded county in Minnesota from
assessing and collecting taxes on casino property.
Motions granted in part, and denied in part.
Mahnomen County, Minnesota v. Bureau of Indian Affairs
604 F.Supp.2d 1252
No. 08-5180
United States District Court, Minnesota, March 24, 2009
Subjects: Land into trust -- White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians; White Earth Band of Chippewa Indians -- Land tenure; United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs; Notice (Law); Mahnomen County (Minn.).
*Synopsis: County brought action against Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Secretary of Interior, and United States, seeking review of BIA determination, which took property on White Earth Indian Reservation into trust as a mandatory acquisition under White Earth Lands Settlement Act WELSA). Defendants moved to dismiss or for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) determination that tract was purchased exclusively with WELSA funds was
reasonable and supported by evidence;
(2) BIA did not act in bad faith in reviewing reservation's records; and
(3) regulation providing for notice and opportunity to be heard in relation to
discretionary acquisitions was not applicable to county's challenge.
Motion granted.
New Jersey Sand Hill Band of Lenape & Cherokee Indians v. Corzine
2009 WL 799210
No. 09-683
United States District Court, D. New Jersey, March 24, 2009
Subjects: Land tenure -- New Jersey Sand Hill Band of Lenape & Cherokee Indians; New Jersey.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) This matter comes before the Court upon the petition of the New Jersey Sand Hill Band of Lenape & Cherokee Indians (the "Sand Hill Band") and its public minister, Ronald-Stacey (collectively, "petitioners"). Petitioners request the Court to, inter alia, temporarily restrain respondents--the State of New Jersey, counties therein, and official representatives of those entities (collectively, "respondents")--from enforcing certain state laws and regulations against them. The crux of the petition is that respondents and their predecessors have wrongly converted and misappropriated petitioners' land and other property for over 200 years, in violation of federalconstitutional and statutory protections.
*Holding: not yet available
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma v. United States
2009 WL 764488
No. 06-936L
United States Court of Federal Claims, March 20, 2009
Subjects: Breach of trust -- United States; Fiduciary accountability; Tribal trust funds -- United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians of Oklahoma.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma filed action
against United States alleging breach of its fiduciary duty to properly
administer, provide accountingof, and safely invest funds derived from tribe's
assets. United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
*Holding: The United States Court of Federal Claims, Thomas C. Wheeler, J., held
that plaintiff that filed its complaint in Court of Federal Claims first did not
have claim "pending" in another court.
Motion denied.
Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. U.S. Department of Interior
2009 WL 763069
No. 06-1826
United States District Court, District of Columbia, March 19, 2009
Subjects: not yet available
*Synopsis: Indian tribe filed action against Department of Interior and Secretary of Department, alleging breach of provisions of parties' Compact of Self-Governance and accompanying agreements entered into pursuant to Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed.
*Holding: The District Court, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, J., held that:
(1) issues of fact regarding injury suffered precluded summary judgment on
breach of contract claims;
(2) tribe did not suffer loss as result of Department's failure to notify tribe
of availability of year end funds; and
(3) as an issue of first impression, district court had jurisdiction to order
specific performance of contract under ISDEAA.
Plaintiff's motion granted in part and denied in part; defendants' motion granted
in part and denied in part.
Bales v. Chickasaw Nation Industries
2009 WL 904084
No. 07-1024 JP/RLP
United States District Court, New Mexico, March 19, 2009
Subjects: Indian business enterprises -- Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma; Chickasaw Nation Industries; Law -- New Mexico -- Application -- Tribes; United States. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title 7; United States. Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967; Discrimination in employment.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Plaintiff, a non-Native American, brings this employment discrimination lawsuit against Defendant, a corporation wholly owned by the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma doing business in New Mexico. Plaintiff asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); and New Mexico common law. See Complaint for Damages From Race Discrimination, Age Discrimination, Sex, Discrimination, Breaches of an Implied Contract of Employment and Constructive Discharge, filed Oct. 9, 2007; Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
*Holding: not yet available
February
United States v. Begay
2009 WL 465026
No. CR08-1203-PHX-DGC
United States District Court, D of Arizona, February 24, 2009
Subjects: United States. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006; Sex offenders -- Registers; Criminal actions arising on Indian reservations; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico & Utah.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Defendant Brandon Begay asks the Court to dismiss the indictment against him on ten separate grounds related to the application and timing of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
*Holding: not yet available
United States v. Hardman
2009 WL 453354
No. 2:99-CR-00166, 2:99-CR-000047, 2:00-CR-00029
United States District Court, Utah, February 19, 2009
Subjects: Eagle feathers; Eagles -- Protection; Unlawful possession; United States. Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.
*Synopsis: In three separate cases in the United States, District Courts for the Districts of New Mexico and Utah, Edwin L. Mechem, J. and Dee Benson, Chief District Judge, two of the claimants were convicted for unrelated counts of illegally possessing eagle feathers, and the other claimant had his eagle feather returned following seizure by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. After vacating the panel opinions, and then sua sponte ordering that the cases be reheard en banc, the Court of Appeals, Tacha, Chief Judge, 297 F.3d 1116, remanded with respect to two claimants, and affirmed with respect to other claimant.
*Holding: On remand, the District Court, Dee Benson, J., held that government did not employ least restrictive means in enacting ban on possession of eagle feathers by non-Native Americans, as required under Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
So ordered.
United States v. Wilgus
2009 WL 393617
No. 2:99-CR-00047, 2:99-CR-00166, 2:00-CR-00029
United States District Court, Utah, February 17, 2009
Subjects: United States. Constitution. Free exercise clause; Eagle feathers; Non-Indians; Freedom of religion; Religious articles.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) In 1990 the United States Supreme Court held that an otherwise valid law of general application that incidentally imposed a burden on the practice of a particular religion did not offend the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. See Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990). Characterizing Smith as an unwarranted departure from well-established free exercise jurisprudence, Congress retaliated by passing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. 42 U.S .C. § 2000bb et seq. A certain amount of edifying back-and-forth between the legislative and judicial branches ensued. For present purposes, the result of that interaction is that RFRA's reinstatement of the strict scrutiny test governs this Court's consideration of federal laws permitting Native American practitioners of Native American religions to possess eagle feathers for religious purposes but forbidding non-Native American adherents of the very same religions from likewise possessing eagle feathers. If the federal government imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion, as the government concedes it has done in this case, the government action creating the burden will fall afoul of RFRA unless the government can demonstrate that the burden (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(b). In other words, “only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). In order to show that its compelling interests “cannot otherwise be served,” the government must demonstrate that it has explored other possible means of advancing its goals and found that they would not serve.
*Holding: not yet available
Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation v. United States
2009 WL 349809
No. 02-6751 L
United States Court of Federal Claims, February 10, 2009
Subjects: Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana -- Claims; Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana -- Finance; Judgment funds; United States. Indian Claims Commission; Trusts and trustees -- United States; Breach of trust -- United States; Intervention (Civil procedure).
*Synopsis: Indian tribes brought suit against United States seeking damages for mismanagement of judgment funds awarded by Indian Claims Commission. Proposed intervenors filed motion to intervene.
*Holding: The United States Court of Federal Claims, Hewitt, J., held that:
(1) interest of proposed intervenors, who had not been recognized as beneficiaries of compensation fund for ceded land, in gaining status as beneficiaries, was indirect or contingent, and thus was complete bar to granting intervention of right;
(2) proposed intervenors did not hold interest that substantive law recognized as belonging to, or being owned by, them, as required to intervene as of right;
(3) interest of proposed intervenors had not been impaired, as required to intervene as of right;
(4) issue of whether existing parties adequately represented interest of proposed intervenors was not relevant to motion;
(5) delay of 16 years in applying for intervention did not favor finding that intervention was timely;
(6) existence of body of case law that addressed precise issue of contestations of tribal enrollment practices militated against existence of unusual circumstances that would have supported finding that motion to intervene as of right was timely;
(7) prejudice to proposed intervenors by judgment in lawsuit would have been minimal at best; and (8) common question of law or fact did not exist, as required for permissive intervention. Motion denied.
United States v. Morrison
2009 WL 320333
No. 04-CR-699
United States District Court, of E.D New York, February 6, 2009
Subjects: Cigarettes -- Labeling -- New York (State); Cigarettes -- Sales -- Taxation; United States. Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act; United States. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
*Synopsis: After jury found defendant guilty of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) conspiracy and being a felon in possession of a firearm, defendant filed motion to dismiss or for new trial.
*Holding: The District Court, Hurley, Senior District Judge, held that:
(1) defendant's alleged violations of the Contraband Cigarettes Trafficking Act
(CCTA) in connection with his alleged sale of cigarettes lacking valid New York
State tax stamps while operating retail cigarette business on Indian reservation
could serve as predicate acts under RICO;
(2) government was not barred from changing its theory of case for RICO
conspiracy counts by arguing that predicate acts were on-reservation sale of
unstamped cigarettes;
(3) CCTA provision barring sale of cigarettes lacking tax stamp required by
state law was not unconstitutionally vague;
(4) application of the CCTA provision to defendant was not arbitrary, in
violation of substantive due process;
(5) application of CCTA provision to defendant was not result of selective
enforcement, in violation of equal protection;
(6) lack of scienter requirement the CCTA provision did not make the statute
unconstitutionally vague;
(7) tax attorney who advised defendant was not the equivalent of an authorized
state official for purposes of entrapment by estoppel; and
(8) evidence was sufficient to support the felon in possession conviction.
AK-Chin indian Community v. United States
2009 WL 320333
No. 06-932 L
United States Court of Federal Claims, February 5, 2009
Subjects: United States. Court of Federal Claims; United States. District Court (District of Columbia); Jurisdiction; Breach of trust -- United States; Trusts and trustees -- United States; Leases -- On trust lands -- Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona; Discovery (Law).
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought action against United States, seeking damages for alleged breach of trust obligations. Tribe moved to compel discovery. The Court of Federal Claims, - Fed.Cl. -, 2009 WL 141205, granted motion. United States moved for reconsideration.
*Holding: The Court of Federal Claims, Emily C. Hewitt, J., held that manifest injustice would not result absent reconsideration of order granting tribe's motion to compel discovery.
Motion for reconsideration denied.
South Fork Band v. United States Department of Interior
2009 WL 249711
No. 3:08-CV-00616-LRH-RAM
United States District Court, of Nevada, February 3, 2009
Subjects: Mines and mineral resources; United States.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; United States. Federal Land Policy
and Management Act of 1976; United States. Religious Freedom Restoration Act
of 1993; Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone Indians of Nevada (Four constituent
bands: Battle Mountain Band; Elko Band; South Fork Band and Wells Band); United
States;
Tribes - Land tenure.
*Synopsis: Indian tribes brought action challenging Bureau of Land Management's
(BLM) approval of mining project on federal land. Tribes moved for preliminary
injunction prohibiting mining company from proceeding with the project. Mining
company filed motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.
*Holding: The District Court, Larry R. Hicks, J., held that:
(1) tribes satisfied their burden of demonstrating associational standing to
represent their members;
(2) tribes failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their
Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claim; and
(3) tribes failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of their
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) claims.
Motions denied.
January
Douglas v. Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians
2009 WL 224538
No. CV08-159-S-EJL
United States District Court, of Idaho, January 29, 2009
Subjects: Tribal members -- Dry Creek Rancheria of
Pomo Indians of California; Tribal membership; Articles of Association
-- Dry Creek Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California; Records -- Management.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The Plaintiffs, Deborah J. Dollar Douglas, Lisa R. Dollar Shinaver, and Elizabeth Wiley, are enrolled members of the Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians (“the Tribe”). Plaintiffs filed a class action law suit on behalf of members of the Tribe against certain named Defendants, who are executive board members of the Tribe's committee and are responsible for the enrollment records of the Tribe. The Complaint alleges Defendants have isolated the Tribe's Articles of Association by failing to properly maintaining the enrollment records of the Tribe such that a large number of individuals are improperly listed as enrolled members. Certain monetary distributions and other benefits are made to enrolled tribal members from the list. As a result, Plaintiffs argue, a number of individuals are improperly receiving the benefits of Tribal membership. Plaintiffs seek an order directing the Defendants “to refrain immediately and pending the final hearing and determination of this action” from convening membership meetings where candidate nominations and elections for the new board of directors for the Tribe will be held and/or holding meetings for referendum elections or votes on amendments to the Tribe's Articles of Association.
*Holding: not yet available
Samish Indian Nation v. United States
2009 WL 234585
No. 02-1383L
United States Court of Federal Claims, January 28, 2009
Subjects: Samish Indian Tribe, Washington -- Services
for; Federally recognized Indian tribes -- Lists; Samish Indian Tribe, Washington
-- Government relations -- United States; Tribal Priority Allocation system
(TPA).
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought suit against the United States, seeking compensation for benefits it would have received under the Tribal Priority Allocation (TPA) system and the Indian Health Service (IHS) funding process if it had been properly recognized by the federal government during a nearly 28-year period. Following partial dismissal, 82 Fed.Cl. 54, tribe moved for entry of judgment.
*Holding: The Court of Federal Claims, Sweeney, J., held that:
(1) tribe's claims were not individual, cognizable claims, as required for entry of judgment, and
(2) just reason existed for delaying entry of final judgment. Motion denied.
Siegfried v. Bureau of Indian Affairs
2009 WL 189406
No. 1:05-CV-055
United States District Court, District of North Dakota, January 27, 2009
Subjects: Indian reservation police; Police --
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; United States. Federal
Tort Claims Act; Workers' compensation; Police vehicles -- Accidents; Automobiles
-- Maintenance and repair; Liability for traffic accidents; United States.
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff, Allen Siegfried (“Siegfried”), is a tribal law enforcement officer employed by the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. He initiated the above-entitled action by complaint pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act on April 15, 2005. He sought to recover damages for injuries he sustained while assisting with the apprehension of Curtis Feather (“Feather”), a suspected pickup thief, near Cannonball, North Dakota.FN1 His complaint set forth two causes of action: (1) the BIA was negligent for failing to maintain the patrol vehicle in which he was injured while a passenger; and (2) the Government was obligated to provide compensation under the State's underinsured motorist laws given the fact that Feather was not insured.
*Holding: not yet available
Osage Nation v. Oklahoma ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission
2009 WL 204194
No. 01-CV-516-JHP-FHM
United States District Court, of N.D. Oklahoma, January 23, 2009
Subjects: Disestablished Indian reservations; Indian reservations -- Boundaries; Indian Country (Okla.) -- Defined; Taxation -- Law and legislation -- Oklahoma -- Application -- Osage Tribe, Oklahoma -- Members; Income tax -- Osage Tribe, Oklahoma -- Members -- Oklahoma -- Osage County; Osage Tribe, Oklahoma -- Officials and employees -- Taxation -- Oklahoma; Standing to sue.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought action against Oklahoma state tax commission and members of commission, seeking declaratory judgment that reservation boundaries were not disestablished and that reservation was Indian country, and injunction prohibiting commission and its members from imposing and collecting taxes on income of tribe's members who resided and earned income within reservation boundaries. Defendants moved to dismiss and motion was converted to one for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, James H. Payne, J., held that:
(1) tribe had standing to bring suit challenging reservation status;
(2) reservation was no longer intact; and
(3) income of tribe members working and living on private fee lands was not exempt from taxation. Motion granted.
Boney v. Valline
2009 WL 302053
No. 3:05-cv-00683-RCJ-VPC
United States District Court, District of Nevada, January 22, 2009
Subjects: United States. Constitution. 1st Amendment; United States. Constitution. 4th Amendment; Arrest; United States. Federal Tort Claims Act; Indian reservation police; Police shootings; Police -- Walker River Paiute Tribe of the Walker River Reservation, Nevada.
*Synopsis: Arrestee brought Bivens action against tribal police officer, seeking damages for officer's alleged violation of her First and Fourth Amendment rights in connection with her arrest and son's death. Officer moved for summary judgment.
*Holding: The District Court, Robert C. Jones, J., held that:
(1) on matter of first impression, officer was not acting under color of federal law, as required to subject officer to arrestee's Bivens action, and
(2) officer was not acting as a federal employee within meaning of Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). Motion granted.
Cachil Dehe band of Wintun indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. California
2009 WL 161081
No. 0 CIV. S-04-2265 FCD KJM
United States District Court, District of California, January 22, 2009
Subjects: Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, California; Indian gaming -- Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community of the Colusa Rancheria, California; Gambling on Indian reservations -- California; Intergovernmental agreements - Indian gaming.
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) In this case, proposed plaintiff-intervenor Picayune Rancheria alleges that the Commission breached its Gaming Compact with the State of California by miscalculating the total number of licenses in the gaming device license pool. (Proposed Compl. in Intervention [Docket # 55], filed Jan. 2, 2009.) Proposed plaintiff-intervenor seeks a declaration that “the correct number of licenses in excess of 32,151 in the gaming device license pool” should be available for issuance to Proposition 1A Tribes, including the Picayune Rancheria.
*Holding: not yet available
United States v. Menominee Tribal Enterprises
2009 WL 122802
No. 07-C-316
United States District Court, District of Wisconsin, January 16, 2009
Subjects: United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs -- Contracts; Breach of contract -- Menominee Tribal Enterprises; Sovereign immunity -- Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin -- Officials and employees; United States. False Claims Act; Fire extinction -- Contracts -- United States; Discovery (Law).
*Synopsis: (from the opinion) The United
States brought this action against Menominee Tribal
Enterprises (“MTE”) and two of its employees.
The Government alleges that the Defendants submitted
invoices seeking payment that contained false information,
in violation of the False Claims Act, 31
U.S.C. § 3729. It further alleges that MTE
breached contracts it had with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs when it made several large purchases without
receiving prior approval.
*Holding: not yet available
Ak-Chin Indian Community v. United States
85 Fed.Cl. 397
No. 06-932 L
United States Court of Federal Claims, January 14, 2009
Subjects: United States. Court of Federal Claims; United States. District Court (District of Columbia); Jurisdiction; Breach of trust -- United States; Trusts and trustees -- United States; Leases -- On trust lands -- Ak Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian Reservation, Arizona.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe brought action against United States seeking damages for
breach of trust obligations. Tribe moved to compel discovery.
*Holding: The Court of Federal Claims, Hewitt, J., held that:
(1) government had to organize and label documents responsive to tribe's
document production requests and interrogatories, and
(2) government's offer to produce business records was not adequate response to
tribe's interrogatories.
Motion granted.
Bercier v. Turtle Mountain Tribal Court
2009 WL 113606
No. 4:08-cv-094
United States District Court, District of North Dakota, January 15, 2009
Subjects: Exhaustion of tribal remedies; Jurisdiction -- Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; Habeas corpus; United States. Indian Civil Rights Act; Jurisdiction -- United States.
*Synopsis: (from the
opinion) Before the Court is the Plaintiff's
petition for habeas corpus relief pursuant to the
Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25
U.S.C. §§
1301-03 filed on November 4, 2008. See Docket
No. 2. On December 19, 2008, the Defendant filed
a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Tribal
Court Remedies. See Docket No. 8. Magistrate Judge
Charles S. Miller, Jr. reviewed the pending motions
and, on December 22, 2008, submitted a Report and
Recommendation. See Docket No. 10. Judge Miller
found that the Court should require the Plaintiff
to exhaust his tribal court remedies by seeking
relief from the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court of
Appeals. Judge Miller recommended that the Defendant's
motion to dismiss be granted and that the Plaintiff's
habeas corpus petition be denied without prejudice
to a later refiling after available tribal remedies
have been exhausted or the Plaintiff is able to
demonstrate that exhaustion would be futile.
*Holding: not yet available
Gillette v. Edison
2009 WL 81919
No. 4:08-cv-102
United States District Court, D. North Dakota, January 14, 2009
Subjects: Jurisdiction -- North Dakota; Lawyers --
Malpractice; Equality before the law; Criminal actions arising on Indian reservations;
Tribal courts -- Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation,
North Dakota.
*Synopsis: Attorney who was the subject of pending North Dakota disciplinary
proceedings brought cause of action to enjoin proceedings, based both on alleged
violation of his equal protection rights and on theory that North Dakota Supreme
Court did not have jurisdiction to discipline him for alleged misconduct occurring
in connection with litigation in Indian tribal court. Defendant moved to dismiss.
*Holding: The District Court, Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, held that:
(1) North Dakota Supreme Court had jurisdiction and authority to discipline
attorney who had been licensed to practice law in North Dakota for misconduct
allegedly occurring in connection with his representation of clients before tribal
court; and
(2) North Dakota attorney disciplinary proceeding that attorney sought to enjoin
was "ongoing state judicial proceeding," of kind contemplated by Younger
abstention doctrine;
(3) North Dakota had important interest in pending disciplinary proceeding; and
(4) attorney had adequate opportunity to raise constitutional claims in
disciplinary proceeding, so that attorney's lawsuit would be enjoined.
Amador County, California v. Kempthorne
2009 WL 37517
No. 05-658
United States District Court, District of Columbia, January 8, 2009
Subjects: Intergovernmental agreements -- Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Intergovernmental agreements -- California; Indian gaming; Gambling on Indian reservations -- California; United States. Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; United States. Dept. of the Interior; Amador County (Calif.); Indian Country (U.S.) -- Defined; Casinos -- Design and construction.
*Synopsis: County brought action against the Department of the Interior (DOI), the Secretary of the DOI, and the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, alleging that the approval of an amendment to the gaming compact between an Indian tribe and the state of California was an arbitrary and capricious decision in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the amendment authorized gaming in violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Defendants moved to dismiss.
*Holding: The District Court, Richard W. Roberts, J., held that:
(1) county alleged an injury-in-fact as required to satisfy constitutional standing;
(2) county alleged an injury fairly traceable to defendants' action that could be redressable through judicial means, as required for constitutional standing;
(3) decision of Secretary to approve, disapprove, or take no action on compact was committed to agency discretion and was thus unreviewable under the APA; and
(4) approval of compact could not violate the IGRA.
Motion granted.
Gasplus, L.L.C. v. United States Department of the Interior
2009 WL 42926
No. 03-1902
United States District Court, District of Columbia, January 6, 2009
Subjects: Jurisdiction -- United States; Due process of law -- United States; United States. Bureau of Indian Affairs; Gas distribution -- Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; Contracts -- Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico -- Federal supervision; Sovereignty -- Pueblo of Nambe, New Mexico; GasPlus.
*Synopsis: Gasoline distribution company sued Department of the Interior (DOI), challenging decision in which Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) declared that management agreement between company and Indian tribe was terminated immediately for lack of approval by Secretary of the Interior, as required by statute. The District Court, 510 F.Supp.2d 18, granted summary judgment for company. Company applied for costs and attorney fees pursuant to Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).
*Holding: The District Court, Rosemary M. Collyer, J., held that:
(1) company could not recover photocopying expense as part of cost award;
(2) costs incurred in serving two defendants who were sued in their individual capacities under Bivens were not incurred as part of action against United States, and thus could not be recovered as part of cost award;
(3) government's interpretation of statute underlying contract termination was not substantially justified;
(4) government's alleged bad faith was not established by clear and convincing evidence, precluding award of discretionary fees; and
(5) reduction in company's attorney fee award was not warranted on grounds that company did not prevail on its due process claim and its opposition to government's motion to remand. Ordered accordingly.
The Mobile Washington (MOWA) Band of the Choctaw Indian Tribes v. Sunbelt Resources
2009 WL 32734
No. 08-00413-WS-B
United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, January 5, 2009
Subjects: Incineration -- Waste disposal; Hazardous and toxic substances; Breach of contract; Bad faith (Law); Sunbelt Resources, Inc.; MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians of Alabama.
*Synopsis: Indian tribe/lessor and individual landowners brought state-court action against lessees, operators of incineration plant for non-hazardous waste on tribal property, alleging discharge of hazardous and toxic substances. Lessees filed third-party action against insurer, alleging breach of contract and bad faith in insurer's failure to defend and indemnify against tribe's and landowners' action. Insurer removed entire action on diversity grounds. After removal, insurer moved to sever and remand, contending that it had been improperly joined. Tribe and landowners moved to remand entire action, and lessees also moved to remand entire action.
*Holding: The District Court, William H. Steele, J., adopted opinion of United
States Magistrate Judge Sonja F. Bivins, which held that:
(1) third party defendants are not entitled to exercise right of removal;
(2) separate and independent claim can justify removal only if that claim is
within federal-question jurisdiction; and
(3) statutory one-year deadline for diversity-based removal only applies to
cases not removable at time of filing.
Motion to sever and remand denied; motions to remand granted.
Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. United States
593 F.Supp.2d 44
No. 08-1031 (EGS)
United States District Court, District of Columbia, January 5, 2009
Subjects: Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Mohican Indians of Wisconsin -- Boundaries; Land into trust -- Oneida Nation of New York; Land tenure -- Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Mohican Indians of Wisconsin; Ancestral lands -- Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Mohican Indians of Wisconsin; United States. Administrative Procedure Act.
*Synopsis: In Indian tribe's action challenging Department of the Interior's (DOI) decision to take certain lands in New York into trust for benefit of another tribe, defendants moved to transfer case to Northern District of New York and suspend its obligation to answer in the District Court.
*Holding: The District Court, Emmet G. Sullivan, J., held that:
(1) private-interest factors favored granting Government's motion to transfer
action, and
(2) public-interest considerations favored granting motion.
Motion granted.
|
