• News Bulletins
  • Supreme Court
  • Fed. Cts. of Appeals
  • District Courts
  • State Courts
  • Regulatory
  • Legislation
  • News
  • Law Reviews
• Library Catalog
• Research By Topic
• Tribal Law
  • Tribal Law Gateway
  • About ATLP
• Research Help
• About NILL
  • Contact Us
  • Our History
  • Our Collection
  • Cost Sharing
  • Donate Now

Indian Law Bulletins  |  Federal Trial Courts  |  2013

Last updated: May 2, 2013

Next update should be ready by: May 17, 2013

Please alert us to any cases we may have missed from the U.S. Federal Trial Court

Newest Cases:

Thorpe v. Thorpe
2013 WL 1703572
Civil Action No. 3:CV–10–1317.
United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania, April 19, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Now, following the close of discovery, Plaintiffs seek summary judgment in their favor and a declaration that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act applies to the Borough and the remains of Jim Thorpe. The Borough opposes Plaintiffs' motion and also requests summary judgment in its favor. The Borough argues that the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this action pursuant to the "probate exception" to federal jurisdiction. The Borough further asserts that it is not a "museum" under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act because it never received "Federal funds", or, alternatively, that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of laches."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Related News Stories: Jim Thorpe's remains can be moved to native land, court rules (The Inquistr) 4/20/13

Bristol Bay Area Health Corp. v. United States
2013 WL 1715605
No. 07–725 C.
United States Court of Federal Claims, April 18, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). Plaintiff, Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation ("Bristol Bay") alleges that the government breached a statutory and contractual duty when it entered into contracts with plaintiff for plaintiff to provide health care services to tribal members but failed to pay plaintiff for certain costs from fiscal years ("FY") 1993 through 1999. . . . Bristol Bay is a tribal organization that provides public health services to Alaska Natives and other eligible beneficiaries pursuant to ISDEAA agreements with IHS."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Older 2013 Cases:

April

Timbisha Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. Dep't of Interior
2013 WL 1451360
No. 2:11–cv–00995–MCE–DAD.
United States District Court, E.D. California, April 9, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "The current lawsuit is the culmination of a long-standing dispute over the election and composition of the proper Tribal Council. While it is undisputed that in 2006 the Tribal Council consisted of Joe Kennedy ("Kennedy"), who was elected as Chairman, Ed Beaman ("Beaman"), Madeline Esteves, Virginia Beck ("Beck") and Cleveland Casey ("Casey") ("2006 Council"), since then multiple factions have claimed to lead the Tribe."

* Holding: (not yet available)

March

Akiachak Native Community v. Salazar
Briefs from Turtle Talk
2013 WL 1292172
Civil Action No. 06–969 (RC).
United States District Court, District of Columbia, March 31, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Four tribes of Alaska Natives and one individual Native brought this suit to challenge the Secretary of the Interior's decision to leave in place a regulation that treats Alaska Natives differently from other native peoples. The challenged regulation governs the taking of land into trust under Section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 465; it provides that, with one exception, the regulatory procedures “do not cover the acquisition of land in trust status in the State of Alaska.” 25 C.F.R. § 151.1. The plaintiffs argue that this exclusion of Alaska Natives—and only Alaska Natives—from the land-into-trust application process is void under 25 U.S.C. § 476(g), which nullifies regulations that discriminate among Indian tribes."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Related News Stories: State appeals D.C. court's decision on Akiachak lands (Alaska Journal) 4/25/13. State attorney weighs in on tribal lands case (Alaska Public Radio) 4/9/13. Court decision has big implications for tribal lands (Alaska Public Media) 4/8/13.

Historic Eastern Pequots v. Salazar
2013 WL 1289571
Civil Action No. 12–58 (EGS).
United States District Court, District of Columbia, March 31, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Pending before the Court is a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer, filed by defendants Kenneth Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, and Larry Echohawk, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. Upon consideration of the motion, the response and reply thereto, a brief filed by the State of Connecticut as Amicus Curiae, the entire record, and for the reasons stated below, defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED. . . . In 1978, the Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut filed a letter of intent seeking federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe pursuant to 25 C.F.R. Part 83. See 65 Fed.Reg. 17299 (Mar. 31, 2000)."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Mitchell v. Seneca Nation of Indians
2013 WL 1337299
No. 12–CV–119–A.
United States District Court, W.D. New York, March 29, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "This action seeking habeas corpus relief under the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301–03 ("ICRA"), was brought following issuance of a tribal resolution by defendant Seneca Nation of Indians ("Nation") that imposes serious restrictions on plaintiff Bergall Mitchell, III, a member of the Nation. The Nation and its co-defendants, a former President of the Nation and members of its Tribal Council who issued the tribal resolution, move pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the restrictions imposed on Mitchell by the tribal resolution are not severe enough to satisfy the "custody" requirement of § 1303 and because Mitchell failed to exhaust tribal remedies."

* Holding: (not yet available)

United States v. Washington
2013 WL 1334391
No. CV 70–9213.
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, March 29, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "This matter was initiated by a Request for Determination ("Request") filed in 2001 by plaintiffs Suquamish Indian Tribe, Jamestown S'Klallam, Lower Elwha Band of Klallam, Port Gamble Clallam, Nisqually Indian Tribe, Nooksack Tribe, Sauk–Suiattle Tribe, Skokomish Indian Tribe, Squaxin Island Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe, Upper Skagit Tribe, Tulalip Tribe, Lummi Indian Nation, Quinault Indian Nation, Puyallup Tribe, Hoh Tribe, Confederated Bands and Tribes of the Yakama Indian Nation, Quileute Indian Tribe, Makah Nation, and Swinomish Tribal Community, and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe (hereafter, "the Tribes"). Plaintiff United States of America joined in the request. The Request for Determination, filed pursuant to the Permanent Injunction in this case, asked the Court to find that the State of Washington has a treaty-based duty to preserve fish runs, and sought to compel the State to repair or replace culverts that impede salmon migration to or from spawning grounds."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Related News Stories: Court ruling a win for treaty rights (North County Outlook) 4/9/13

Shiprock Associated Schools, Inc. v. United States
2013 WL 1277730
Civil No. 11–cv–983 MV/WDS.
United States District Court, D. New Mexico, March 28, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Plaintiff Shiprock Associated Schools, Inc. (the "School") is a tribal organization of the Navajo Nation. Doc. 1 (Complaint) ¶ 3. Pursuant to a TCSA grant agreement, the School operates a pre-K through twelfth grade school program on the Navajo Reservation. Id. ¶ 4. . . . In the Complaint, the School alleges that it was unlawful for Defendants to interpret Sections 2007, 2008 and 2502 to disallow the School's use of ISEP funds to cover administrative costs that exceeded the amount of the School's administrative cost grant."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Federal Trade Commission v. Payday Financial, LLC
2013 WL 1309437
No. CIV 11–3017–RAL.
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Central Division, March 28, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "The pending motion for partial summary judgment presents the issue of tribal court jurisdiction over non-Indians who contract with a company doing business from an Indian reservation."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Villa v. Salazar
2013 WL 1245759
Civil Action No. 12–1086 (RMC).
United States District Court, District of Columbia, March 28, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Under the Administrative Procedure Act, Nicolas Villa, Jr., challenges the decision of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to acquire in trust a parcel of land in Amador County, California, for Indian gaming purposes. Chief Villa alleges that Interior should not have acquired the land and should not have recognized the Ione Band of Miwok Indians as a "restored tribe" under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because that group is unconnected to the tribe led by Chief Villa, called the Ione Band of Miwok Indians of California. Interior moves to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas v. United States
2013 WL 1279033
No. 2:12–CV–83–JRG–RSP.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division, March 27, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "The Tribe identifies three asserted errors of law in the Report and Recommendation ("R & R"): (1) that the waiver of sovereign immunity in § 702 of the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") is limited to actions brought under § 704; (2) that the Tribe's complaint constitutes a "programmatic challenge" not authorized by the APA; and (3) that the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361, does not provide a waiver of sovereign immunity for this case."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Hansen v. Salazar
2013 WL 1192607
No. C08–0717–JCC.
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle, March 22, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their first cause of action (Dkt. No. 68), Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 76), and Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their second and third causes of action (Dkt. No. 96). Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' denial of Plaintiffs' petition for federal acknowledgment as an Indian tribe violated the Administrative Procedure Act and Plaintiffs' constitutional rights."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Cryer v. Spencer
2013 WL 1192354
Civil Action No. 11–11953–PBS.
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts, March 21, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "On October 31, 2011, plaintiff Derek Sincere Black Wolf Cryer ("Cryer"), a state prisoner at the Souza–Baranowski Correctional Center ("SBCC"), filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging first amendment violations in connection with his free exercise of religion, and violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc. . . . Cryer's chief complaint is that he has been denied access to a cassette player and Native American audiotapes for use in his cell and in the yard."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Perez v. Consolidated Tribal Health Project
2013 WL 1191242
No. 12–5403–SC.
United States District Court, N.D. California, March 21, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Plaintiff Helen Perez ("Perez") brings this action in connection with an alleged slip-and-fall injury she sustained on the premises of Defendant Consolidated Tribal Health Project, Inc. ("Tribal Health"). Perez initially filed a complaint in Mendocino County Superior Court. The U.S. Attorney subsequently removed on the grounds that Tribal Health is funded pursuant to the Indian Self–Determination and Education Assistance Act ("ISDEAA"), 25 U.S .C. § 450 et seq., and thus Perez's claims are governed by the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). ECF No. 1 (Notice of Removal ("NOR")). Perez now moves to remand the action back to state court. ... Perez's motion to remand is DENIED"

* Holding: (not yet available)

Allen v. Smith
2013 WL 950735
No. 12cv1668–WQH–KSC.
United States District Court, S.D. California, March 11, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "On July 3, 2012, twenty-seven former members of the Pala Band of Mission Indians ("Plaintiffs") filed a Complaint against Defendants, seeking monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiffs assert the following claims for relief to remedy their disenrollment from the Pala Tribe: (1) conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3); (2) deprivation of equal rights under the law, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (3) conversion; (4) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; (5) defamation; and (6) civil conspiracy. Id. at 56–61."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Kinlichee v. United States
2013 WL 943042
No. CV11–8038–PCT–JAT.
United States District Court, D. Arizona, March 11, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Defendant states that the Native American common law adoption order obtained by Ms. Davis in Navajo Family Court fails to provide her with a legal adoption for purposes of standing in a wrongful death action in Federal court. (Doc. 56 at 9–11)."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Butler v. Fortunes Asian Cuisine
2013 WL 866492
No. 12cv2409 WQH (BLM).
United States District Court, S.D. California, March 6, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Plaintiff alleges that she suffered personal injuries as a result of eating food at Defendant's establishment. (ECF No. 1–1) ... Defendants assert that Plaintiff's claims “are completely pre-empted by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.” Id. at 2. ... Defendants assert that Plaintiff, “a patron of [Harrah's Rincon Casino and Resort], is a non-Indian who engaged in a consensual relationship with the Rincon Tribe on the reservation by voluntarily entering” Harrah's Rincon Casino and Resort. (ECF No. 4–1 at 12)."

* Holding: (not yet available)

February

Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Indian Reservation v. U.S. Dep't of Interior
2013 WL 755606
No. 12cv1167–GPC(PCL).
United States District Court, S.D. California, Feb. 27, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Plaintiff brought suit alleging violations of the National Historic Preservation Act, ("NHPA"), Federal Land Policy and Management Policy Act, ("FLPMA"), National Environmental Policy Act, ("NEPA"), Archaeological Resources Protection Act, ("ARPA"), and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, ("NAGPRA"), under the Administrative Procedures Act ("APA"). Quechan challenges BLM's approval of the ROD allowing the construction of 112 wind turbines in an area that contains cultural and biological significance to the Tribe."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Inetianbor v. Cashcall, Inc.
2013 WL 563354
No. 13–60066–CIV–COHN/SELTZER.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Feb. 15, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion)"On January 5, 2011, Plaintiff Abraham Inetianbor entered into a consumer loan agreement with Western Sky Financial, LLC ("Western Sky"), for $2,525.00, with an annual interest rate of 135%. .....Plaintiff asserts that the tribal court does not have jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff does not set forth any reasons that would undermine or invalidate the Loan Agreement's provision that the Agreement is "subject solely to the exclusive laws and jurisdiction of the Cheyenne Sioux Tribe, Cheyenne River Indian Reservation."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Crow Tribal Housing Authority v. HUD
2013 WL 589621
No. CV–06–51–BLG–RFC.
United States District Court, D. Montana, Billings Division, Feb. 14, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) Plaintiff Crow Tribal Housing Authority ("CTHA") brings this action against Defendant U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") under the Administrative Procedure Act challenging the HUD's agency action of recouping alleged over-payments of Indian Housing Block Grants ("IHBG") to CTHA under the Native American Housing Assistance and Self–Determination Act of 1996 ("NAHASDA"), 25 U.S.C. § 4101 et seq. Pending before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. Docs. 51 & 60.

* Holding: (not yet available)

Navajo Nation v. U.S. Dept. Interior
2013 WL 530302
CV–11–08205–PCT–PGR
United States District Court, D. Arizona, Feb. 12, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "The complaint, which seeks the immediate return of the human remains and cultural items through the plaintiff's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleges violations of the Treaty of 1850 and the Treaty of 1858 (Count One), breach of fiduciary duty (Count Two), violation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (Count Three), violation of the Constitution (Count Four), and violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (Count Five)."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Related News Stories: Judge: Navajo lawsuit over human remains premature (Ktar) 2/19/13

King Mountain Tobacco Company, Inc. v. Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
2013 WL 526761
No. CV–11–3038–RMP.
United States District Court, E.D. Washington, Feb. 11, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) King Mountain, Mr. Wheeler, and the Yakama Nation brought this action seeking a declaration that King Mountain is not subject to payment of excise taxes on tobacco products under 26 U.S.C. § 5701, an injunction restraining Defendant Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau ("TTB") from preventing King Mountain from selling its products, and a declaration that the Yakama Nation is entitled to meaningful consultation and resolution of disputes with the executive branch. ECF No. 1.

* Holding: (not yet available)

In re Barth
2013 WL 503652
Bankruptcy Nos. 09–36006, 10–34267, 10–38674.
Adversary Nos. 11–03233, 11–03234, 11–03235.
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota, Feb. 11, 2013

*Synopsis: Chapter 7 trustee sought to compel turnover of monthly per capita payments that debtors would receive, in their capacity as members of Indian tribe.

* Holding: The Bankruptcy Court, Dennis D. O'Brien, J., held that, to determine whether, on date that their Chapter 7 petition was filed, the bankrupt members of Indian tribe had any legal or equitable interest in the monthly per capita payments that they would receive in future as their share of revenue from gaming at Indian casino, such that these future per capita payments were included in property of the estate, bankruptcy court had to look not to Minnesota state law, but to tribal law.
Summary judgment for defendants.

Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians v. Caballero
2013 WL 504808
No. 2:08–CV–03133–JAM–DAD.
United States District Court, E.D. California, Feb. 8, 2013

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) " THE COURT FURTHER FINDS THAT, as between the parties, the Tribe has superior rights to use the following marks in any format, regardless of spacing and capitalization, (collectively the "Marks"): "Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians," "Shingle Springs Rancheria," "Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California," "Red Hawk Casino," "Shingle Springs Miwok Tribe," "Shingle Springs Miwok Chief," "Shingle Springs Reservation," "Shingle Springs Indian Reservation," marks that consist of or include the terms "Shingle Springs" and "Band(s)," marks that consist of or include the terms "Shingle Springs" and "Miwok(s)," marks that consist of or include the terms "Shingle Springs" and "Indian(s)," and any other marks confusingly similar to "Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians," "Shingle Springs Rancheria," "Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California," or "Red Hawk Casino."

* Holding: (not yet available)

Redding Rancheria v. Salazar
881 F.Supp.2d 1104
Case No. 11–1493 SC.
United States District Court, N.D. California, Feb. 6, 2012.

*Synopsis: Indian tribe sued Department of Interior (DOI), challenging decision that, pursuant to DOI's regulations, tribe's parcels of undeveloped riverfront lands, located several miles outside tribe's reservation, were ineligible for gaming if DOI took parcels into trust by which parcels would become Indian lands under restored lands exception to Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's (IGRA) general prohibition against gaming on Indian lands taken into trust after date of IGRA's passage. Parties cross-moved for summary judgment."

*Holdings: The District Court, Samuel Conti, J., held that:
(1) Secretary of DOI was authorized to promulgate regulations implementing restored lands exception;
(2) regulations rested on permissible construction of restored lands exception;
(3) regulations did not contravene IGRA;
(4) regulations were reasonable as applied to tribe's parcels; and
(5) DOI did not breach fiduciary duty to tribe.
Defendant's motion granted.

January

Rosser v. Rosser III
2013 WL 372474
No. CIV–12–1024–C.
United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma, Jan. 30, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "First, the Plaintiff requests the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus, ordering the return of her daughter, K.T., who she alleges is being illegally detained. Second, Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment, determining that the Absentee Shawnee Tribal Court lacks jurisdiction over a non-member of its tribe in a divorce action filed by Plaintiff in the District Court of McClain County, State of Oklahoma. . . . Defendant John Rosser has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief, in that she has failed to exhaust state and tribal court remedies."

*Holdings: (not yet available)

Villegas v. United States
2013 WL 791770
No. CV–12–0001–EFS.
United States District Court, E.D. Washington, Jan. 30, 2013

*Synopsis: Enrolled member of federally-recognized Indian tribe brought action against Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other agencies and officials, alleging a Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim, breach of contract and related fiduciary duties, fraud and constructive fraud, trespass and trespass to chattels, tortious damage to the environment, and numerous unspecified violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Federal defendants moved to dismiss the claims.

* Holding: The District Court, Edward F. Shea, Senior Judge, held that:
(1) as long as Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) remediation efforts at mine site continued, plaintiff could not seek a court-ordered preservation of uranium ore which was in part the subject of that remediation effort;
(2) request for declaratory judgment was within exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims;
(3) Tucker Act did not waive sovereign immunity for breach of contract claim;
(4) failure to exhaust administrative remedies barred Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) claims; and
(5) plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege claims for Administrative Procedure Act (APA) violations.
Motion granted.

Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy
2013 WL 357509
No. 12–cv–1455. Dkts. Nos. 76, 78.
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma, Jan. 29, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "The Suquamish Tribe and the Port Gamble and Jamestown S'Klallam Tribes request reconsideration of the Court's Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt.# 73)."

*Holdings: (not yet available)

Stand up for California! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
2013 WL 324035
Civil Action Nos. 12–2039 (BAH), 12–2071(BAH).
United States District Court, District of Columbia, Jan. 29, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "The plaintiffs bring this consolidated action, under the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 461, et seq., the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551, et seq., the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701, et seq., and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, et seq., to challenge the decision of the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to acquire a 305–acre parcel of land in Madera County, California in trust on behalf of the intervenor-defendant North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians and the Secretary's decision to allow gaming on the land in question. Pending before the Court are the government defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue, ECF No. 20, and the Stand Up plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 26."

*Holdings: (not yet available)

Wolfchild v. United States
2013 WL 311303
No. 03–2684L & No. 01–568L
United States Court of Federal Claims, Jan. 28, 2013.

*Synopsis: Lineal descendants of Mdewakanton Sioux who were loyal to United States during 1862 Sioux uprising in Minnesota sued United States for, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty based upon government's management of property originally provided for benefit of loyal Mdewakanton. The Court of Federal Claims, 101 Fed.Cl. 54, directed entry of partial final judgment awarding $673,944 on statutory use-restriction claim, remitted and remanded task of determining eligible claimants to the Secretary of the Interior to effectuate distribution pursuant to Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act, and, 101 Fed.Cl. 92, denied government's motion for reconsideration. After the Department of the Interior began proceedings, government moved for stay or, alternatively, for extension of time to prepare distribution plan, plaintiffs moved for future judicial proceedings under court's remand rule, and intervening plaintiffs moved to compel Department to implement court's prior reimbursement order.

*Holdings: The Court of Federal Claims, Lettow, J., held that:
(1) government did not establish likelihood of success on the merits in seeking stay pending appeal;
(2) government did not show that it would be irreparably harmed absent stay pending appeal;
(3) extension of time for development of distribution plan was warranted;
(4) no basis existed for court to interject itself into Department proceedings to formulate distribution plan; and
(5) intervening plaintiffs were not entitled to interim reimbursement of costs and fees.
Ordered accordingly.

Native American Council of Tribes v. Weber
2013 WL 310633
Civ. No. 09–4182–KES..
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division, Jan. 25, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Plaintiffs, Native American Council of Tribes (NACT), Blaine Brings Plenty, and Clayton Creek, succeeded in a court trial against defendants, Douglas Weber and Dennis Kaemingk, showing that a complete ban of tobacco in Department of Correction (DOC) facilities violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)."

*Holdings: (not yet available)

Related News Stories: Indian inmates in South Dakota win lawsuit [about religious tobacco use] (Indianz.com) 2/7/13

Seminole Nation of Oklahoma v. Salazar
2013 WL 230151
No. CIV–06–556–SPS.
United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma, Jan. 22, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "On July 20, 2011, the Dosar–Barkus Band, one of fourteen representative Bands that constitute the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, filed its Motion to Intervene alleging that it met the requirements for intervention of right under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 24(a) or, in the alternative, permissive intervention under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 24(b).FN1 [Docket No. 128]. More specifically, the Band claims that it possesses a "legal financial interest as beneficiaries to the judgment fund" and that the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma and the Defendants "have both expressed their intention to exclude the Freedmen from settlement negotiations, and as well as exclude them from the distribution plan" of any monetary settlement the parties may eventually agree upon. See, [Docket No. 128–1], p. 7."

*Holdings: (not yet available)

Colombe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe
2013 WL 211275
No. CIV 11–3002–RAL.
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Central Division, Jan. 18, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Both parties have filed motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 48; Doc, 58. Colombe's motion for summary judgment seeks a ruling that the Supreme Court of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe lacked jurisdiction to determine that the oral modification of a casino management contract was invalid. Doc. 48. Colombe contends that summary judgment is proper because the Tribe sued in Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court based on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA") and IGRA does not create a private cause of action. Doc. 48. . . . Defendants oppose Colombe's motion for summary judgment, Doc. 57, and have filed their own motion for summary judgment on Colombe's Complaint. Doc. 58. Defendants argue that the Tribal Court had jurisdiction to determine whether an oral modification to a management contract required approval by the National Indian Gaming Commission ("NIGC") and to declare an unapproved modification contract void. Doc. 58."

*Holdings: (not yet available)

Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation v. US Corps of Engineers
2013 WL 211278
No. CIV 11–3026–RAL..
United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Central Division, Jan. 18, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Sisseton–Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation ("the Tribe") and Robert Shepherd, the Tribe's chairman, filed a Complaint for declaratory, injunctive, and other relief. . . . This lawsuit centers on the Tribe's concern about development at Enemy Swim Lake within the Lake Traverse Reservation in South Dakota."

*Holdings: (not yet available)

The Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.
2013 WL 258414
No. Civ. 12–195 LH/WDS.
United States District Court, D. New Mexico, Jan. 16, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "On September 20, 2012, Defendants Urban Outfitters, Inc.;UO.com, L.L.C.; Urban Outfitters Wholesale, Inc.; Anthropologie, Inc.; Antrhopologie.com, L.L.C.; Free People of PA, L.L.C.; and Freepeople .com, L.L.C. (collectively "Defendants") filed a Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Doc. 38)."

*Holdings: (not yet available)

Related News Stories: Court rules Urban Outfitters trial will stay in New Mexico (Navajo Times) 1/24/13

Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians v. Salazar
2013 WL 146393
No. 12–cv–04885–SC.
United States District Court, N.D. California, Jan. 14, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "This matter arises out of a request by the Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians (the "Tribe") to the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") to call a "Secretarial election" to approve proposed amendments to the Tribe's constitution. The Tribe alleges that the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (the "Secretary") and the Regional Director of BIA (collectively, "Defendants") violated the Indian Reorganization Act ("IRA"), 25 U.S.C. § 476, by failing to call and conduct an election within ninety days of the receipt of the Tribe's request. ECF No. 1 ("Compl.") ¶¶ 17–18. Defendants now move to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). ECF No. 7 ("MTD")."

*Holdings: (not yet available)

Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action v. U.S. Dep't of the Navy
2013 WL 146393
Nos. 12–cv–5537, 12–cv–1455.
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Tacoma, Jan. 11, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Plaintiffs challenge the Navy's decision to build the second wharf under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), arguing that the Navy wrongly withheld certain information, that the Navy failed to consider a wide enough range of alternatives, that the Navy failed to fully discuss efforts at mitigating harm to protected species, and that the Navy's environmental analysis masks harm to salmon. The Suquamish Tribe further argues that the proposed wharf abrogates fishing rights secured to them by treaty and violates the Endangered Species Act ("ESA")."

*Holdings: (not yet available)

Fine Consulting, Inc. v. Rivera
2013 WL 142869
Civ No. 12–004 LH/RHS
United States District Court, D. New Mexico, Jan. 10, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) " THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Tribal Remedies (Docket No. 13). . . This is a diversity lawsuit, wherein Plaintiffs allege tortious interference with a Consulting Agreement (Compl., Count I) and with an Employment Agreement (Id., Count II). The agreements involved are contracts between Plaintiffs and two corporations chartered under the laws of the Pueblo of Pojoaque, a federally recognized Indian tribe ("Tribe"), with its headquarters in New Mexico."

*Holdings: (not yet available)

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, Department of Revenue
2013 WL 118065
No. 12–62238–CIV.
United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Jan. 9, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Plaintiff subsequently brought a claim in Florida state court seeking (1) a refund for fuel tax paid between January 1, 2004, and February 28, 2006, on fuel purchased off-reservation, but used on the reservation to provide governmental services; and (2) a declaration that fuel used by Plaintiff on tribal land is exempt from the tax."

*Holdings: (not yet available)

Thlopthlocco Tribal Town v. Stidham
2013 WL 65234
No. 09–CV–527–JHP–FHM.
United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma, Jan. 3, 2013.

*Synopsis: (from the opinion) "Thlopthlocco is the plaintiff in the two lawsuits referenced in the Second Amended Complaint, which are pending before the Muscogee (Creek) Nation ("MCN") tribal courts. In the first lawsuit ("Anderson I"), Thlopthlocco seeks a declaratory judgment finding the members of the Thlopthlocco Business Committee ("the Business Committee"), which is Thlopthlocco's governing body, are the "lawful leaders of Thlopthlocco," and attempts to void certain actions by the individual defendants."

*Holdings: (not yet available)