: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
|
|
- Lester Hampton
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Robert A. Rosette (Pro Hac Vice pending) Saba Bazzazieh (Pro Hac Vice pending) ROSETTE, LLP 1100 H St. N.W., Ste. 400 Washington, D.C (202) (202) rosette@rosettelaw.com sbazzazieh@rosettelaw.com Anthony Jannotta (CT Bar No ) Dentons US LLP 1301 K Street, N.W. Ste. 600, East Tower Washington, D.C (202) anthony.jannotta@dentons.com GREAT PLAINS LENDING, LLC; JOHN R. SHOTTON; CLEAR CREEK LENDING, vs. Plaintiffs, CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF BANKING; HOWARD F. PITKIN, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Banking; BRUCE ADAMS, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Department of Banking, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Case No. SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN JANUARY 23, PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS...2 III. ARGUMENT The Court Must Issue a Temporary Injunction Enjoining Enforcement of the Department s Order to Prevent Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs....4 A. Plaintiffs Have No Adequate Remedy At Law....5 B. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if a Temporary Injunction Is Not Granted....6 C. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail On the Merits....9 i. Arms of the Tribe and Tribal Officials Enjoy the Tribe s Sovereign Immunity...10 ii. Plaintiffs Sovereign Immunity Extends to State Administrative Process, Including the Department s Order D. The Balance of Equities Tips Plainly in Plaintiffs Favor IV. CONCLUSION i PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION i
3 Case Law ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2006)...11 Aqleh v. Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P., 299 Conn. 84 (2010)...1,4,5 Bishop Paiute Tribe v. County of Inyo, 291 F.3d 549 (9th Cir. 2002)...14 BPC Capital Management I, LLC v. Appeal from Probate, Superior Court of Connecticut, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV (May 16, 2014, Sommer, J.)...6 Breakthrough Management Group, Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort, 629 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010)...11,12 Burchett v. Roncari, 181 Conn. 125, 434 A.2d 941 (1980)...5 C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411 (2000)...11 Cash Advance & Preferred Cash Loans v. State, 242 P.3d 1099 (Colo. 2010)...13,16 Chayoon v. Chao, 355 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2004)...13 Cook v. AVI Casino Enters., Inc., 548 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2008)...12 Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, 535 U.S. 743 (2002)...16,17 Fletcher v. United States 116 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 1997)...12,13 Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care, 196 Conn. 451, 457, 493 A.2d 493 (1985)...10 In re CashCall, Inc., Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (Conn. Dept. of Banking Feb. 4, 2014)...12 International Ass'n. of Firefighters, Local 786 v. Serrani, 26 Conn.App. 610, 616, 602 A.2d 1067 (1992)...4 Inyo Co. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Cmty., 538 U.S. 701 (2003)...15 Kansas v. United States, 249 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2001)...1 Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, 523 U.S. 751 (1998)...10,11 Kizis v. Morse Diesel Int l, 260 Conn. 46 (2002)...13 Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, et al. v. Norton, 327 F.Supp.2d 995 (W.D. Wis. 2004)...1 Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973)...16 Miami Tribe of Okla. v. Walden, 206 F.R.D. 238 (D. Ill. 2001)...1 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION ii
4 Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct (2014)...10,11 Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. MFS Intelenet of Michigan, Inc., 16 F.Supp.2d 828 (W.D. Mich. 1998)...7 Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd., 60 Cal.App.4th 1340 (1998)...14 Native American Distributing v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co., 546 F. 3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2008)...13 New London v. Perkins, 87 Conn. 229 (1913)...6 Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505 (1991)...10,11,16 Olcott v. Pendleton, 128 Conn. 292 (1941)...4 People v. Miami Nation Enters., 166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 800 (2014)...15 POP Radio, LP v. News American Marketing In-Store, Inc., 49 Conn. Sup. 566 (2005)...4 Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2001)...7 Romanella v. Hayward, 933 F. Supp. 163 (D. Conn. 1996)...12 Semmes Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 429 F.2d 1197 (2d Cir. 1970)...8 Seneca-Cayuga Tribe v. Oklahoma, 874 F.2d 709 (10th Cir. 1989)...7 Seneca Nation of Indians v. Paterson, 2010 WL (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010)...7 Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 291 A.2d 222 (1971)...4 State of Colorado, et al v. Cash Advance, et al. (Case No. 05CV1143) (Order dated February 13, 2012)...16 The Connecticut Association of Clinical Laboratories v. Connecticut Blue Cross, Inc., 31 Conn. Supp. 110 (1983)...6 Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entm t, Inc., 60 F.3d 27 (2nd Cir. 1995)...6, 8 Transportation General, Inc. v. Commissioner of Transportation, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. CV (January 17, 1995, Maloney, J.)...9 Tri-State Generation and Transmission Ass n, Inc. v. Shoshone River Power, Inc., 805 F.2d 351, 356 (10th Cir. 1986)...8 United States v. James, 980 F.2d 1314 (9th Cir. 1992)...14 United States v. Michigan, 534 F. Supp. 668 (W.D. Mich. 1982)...7 United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978)...10 Wyandotte v. Kansas City, 200 F.Supp.2d 1279 (D.Kan. 2002)...1 Zych v. Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, 960 F.2d 665 (7th Cir. 1992) iii PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION iii
5 Statutes Conn. Gen. Statutes, et seq....1 Minn. Stat , subd. 3 (2010)...15 Other Sources Cohen s Handbook of Federal Indian Law 4.01[1][a] at Zeke Faux, Payday Lending by Tribe Targeted by Connecticut, BLOOMBERG, Jan. 6, 2015, /payday-lending-by-tribe-targeted-by-connecticut.html iv PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION iv
6 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Great Plains Lending, LLC ( Great Plains ), John R. Shotton, and Clear Creek Lending, Inc. ( Clear Creek ) hereby file this Ex Parte Application for Temporary Injunction ( Application ) seeking to enjoin the enforcement of an agency decision issued by Defendant Connecticut Department of Banking (the Department ), dated January 6, 2015 and titled Order to Cease and Desist and Order Imposing Civil Penalty (the Order ). 1 This Application is filed concurrently with Plaintiffs Complaint brought pursuant to Connecticut Uniform Administrative Procedure Act ( UAPA ), Conn. Gen. Statutes, et seq., challenging the Department s jurisdiction over Plaintiffs and the validity of the Order following the Department s disregard of binding legal precedent. Plaintiffs respectfully request an order from this Court granting its Application, pending resolution of Plaintiffs Complaint, on grounds that: (1) Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law; (2) Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction; (3) Plaintiffs will likely prevail on the merits; and (4) the balance of equities tip in Plaintiffs favor. Aqleh v. Cadlerock Joint Venture II, L.P., 299 Conn. 84, (2010). Because the Department has issued an Order that has caused and will continue to cause irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs the elected Chairman of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians, a federally-recognized Indian tribe ( Tribe ) and two of the Tribe s wholly owned and operated businesses this Court Great Plains Lending, LLC, Clear Creek Lending and John R. Shotton, bring this action for the limited purpose of contesting the Department s jurisdiction in the underlying administrative proceeding. Such limited or special appearance shall not be construed as waiving any arguments that the Plaintiffs have with regard to their sovereign immunity or the Department s lack of jurisdiction. Indeed, courts have routinely recognized that a sovereign s limited appearance in legal proceedings for the purpose of seeking dismissal for lack of jurisdiction does not waive any claims to sovereign immunity. See e.g., Kansas v. United States, 249 F.3d 1213, 1220 (10th Cir. 2001); Zych v. Wrecked and Abandoned Vessel, 960 F.2d 665, (7th Cir. 1992); Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, et al. v. Norton, 327 F.Supp.2d 995, 1000 (W.D. Wis. 2004); Wyandotte v. Kansas City, 200 F.Supp.2d 1279, 1287 (D.Kan. 2002); Miami Tribe of Okla. v. Walden, 206 F.R.D. 238 (D. Ill. 2001). 1 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
7 must take action to prevent enforcement of the Order, pending resolution of the Complaint filed concurrently herewith. II. STATEMENT OF FACTS Great Plains and Clear Creek are wholly owned and operated entities of the Otoe- Missouria Tribe of Indians, a federally-recognized Indian tribe (the Tribe ). See Affidavit of John R. Shotton filed concurrently herewith ( Shotton Aff. ) at 2. As with other sovereigns, the Tribe has governed itself according to Tribal laws, regulations and norms since its inception. As a federally-recognized Tribe maintaining all inherent attributes of sovereignty, the Tribe enacted the Constitution and Bylaws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians as the supreme law governing all affairs of the Tribe ( Constitution ). The Constitution specifically appointed the Otoe-Missouria Tribal Council as the supreme governing body of the Tribe with the authority to enact laws and ordinances on behalf of the Tribe. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiff John R. Shotton serves as the elected Chairman and leader of the Tribal Council, pursuant to the Tribe s Constitution, and also serves as the Secretary/Treasurer of Great Plains and Clear Creek under the explicit authority vested to him by Tribal law. Id. at 2. In acting on behalf of the Tribal government as well as Great Plains and Clear Creek, Chairman Shotton has acted and continues to act strictly in his official capacity, pursuant to Tribal law and for the benefit of the Tribe and its citizens. Id. at 2-3. Great Plains and Clear Creek were created as arms of the Tribe pursuant to the Otoe- Missouria Tribe of Indians Limited Liability Company Act ( LLC Act ) and the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians Corporation Act ( Corporation Act ). Id. at They are wholly owned entities of the Tribe and are regulated by the Tribe pursuant to the Tribe s Consumer Finance Services Regulatory Commission Ordinance. Id. at 14. The Tribe s LLC Act and Corporation 2 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
8 Act provide that all companies wholly owned by the Tribe shall be considered to be instrumentalities and arms of the Tribe, and their officers and employees considered officers and employees of the Tribe. It was contemplated and intended that these companies would be created for the purpose of Tribal economic development and to aid in addressing issues of public health, safety, and welfare. Id. at 11. The Tribe retains full control over Great Plains and Clear Creek s operations: the directors, charged with managing the companies, may be removed at any time by the Tribal Council, with or without cause. Id. at 13. Pursuant to Tribal law as well as state and federal precedent, as wholly owned Tribal entities, Great Plains and Clear Creek are entitled to all of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the Tribe, including, but not limited to, immunity from suit, except to the extent that the Tribe has unequivocally waived that immunity. Id. at 12. On October 24, 2014, Howard Pitkin, the Commissioner of the Department (the Commissioner ) issued a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist, Order to Make Restitution, Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty, and Notice of Right to Hearing ( Initial Order ) to Plaintiffs. Id. at 17. The Initial Order, which alleges violations of various provisions of the Connecticut General Statutes, acknowledges that Great Plains and Clear Creek were formed pursuant to Tribal law and that John R. Shotton serves as the Tribe s elected Chairman. Id., Ex. H, p. 4, 3. Nowhere in the Initial Order does it allege that Chairman Shotton acted in any manner whatsoever outside of his official capacity as the elected leader of the Tribe and the designated and appointed officer of Great Plains and Clear Creek. Id. at 18. On November 12, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss, together with a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support thereof (the Motion to Dismiss ). See Id., 19-20; see also, Complaint, Ex. E thereto. In its Motion to Dismiss, 3 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
9 Plaintiffs argued that, under well-settled principles of federal Indian law, Plaintiffs are immune from the Department s enforcement action and that the administrative proceeding must be dismissed for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction. The Department subsequently filed an objection to the Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss, and the Plaintiffs submitted a brief in reply. Id. On January 6, 2015, the Commissioner issued his Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, denying Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss, and concurrently issued the Order. Shotton Aff. 23, Ex. I thereto. The Order purports to require the Plaintiffs to cease and desist from violating various sections of the Connecticut General Statutes. 4 The Order further purports to impose civil penalties on each of the Plaintiffs, including a $700,000 penalty upon Great Plains, a $700,000 penalty upon John R. Shotton in his personal capacity, and a $100,000 penalty upon Clear Creek, each to be paid on or before February 6, III. ARGUMENT 1. The Court Must Issue a Temporary Injunction Enjoining Enforcement of the Department s Order to Prevent Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs. The primary purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the status quo and protect the moving party from immediate and irreparable harm until the merits of the case have been determined after a full trial. POP Radio, LP v. News American Marketing In-Store, Inc., 49 Conn. Sup. 566, 569 (2005), citing Olcott v. Pendleton, 128 Conn. 292, 295 (1941). The issuance of an injunction is the exercise of an extraordinary power which rests within the sound discretion of the court... Scoville v. Ronalter, 162 Conn. 67, 74, 291 A.2d 222 (1971); see also International Ass'n. of Firefighters, Local 786 v. Serrani, 26 Conn.App. 610, 616, 602 A.2d 1067 (1992). In general, a court may, in its discretion, exercise its equitable power to order a PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
10 temporary injunction pending final determination of the order, upon a proper showing by the movant that if the injunction is not granted he or she will suffer irreparable harm for which there is no adequate remedy at law. Aqleh, 299 Conn. at 96 (citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.). A party seeking injunctive relief must demonstrate that: (1) it has no adequate remedy at law; (2) it will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction; (3) it will likely prevail on the merits; and (4) the balance of equities tips in its favor. Id. Because Plaintiffs clearly meet the standard for injunctive relief, a temporary injunction staying enforcement of the Order must issue to protect Plaintiffs from immediate and irreparable harm. A. Plaintiffs Have No Adequate Remedy At Law. No cause of action exists specifically claiming a violation of tribal sovereignty and absolute right of self-governance and self-determination, thus Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. An adequate remedy at law is one which is specific and adapted to securing the relief sought conveniently, effectively and completely. Burchett v. Roncari, 181 Conn. 125, 129, 434 A.2d 941 (1980). Because damages or monetary relief are insufficient and cannot effectively remedy the Department s affront to the Tribe s sovereignty and Plaintiffs rights, injunctive relief and specifically a temporary injunction is proper and should be issued. Injunctive relief is required to enjoin Defendants from unlawfully asserting regulatory jurisdiction over a sovereign government, its wholly-owned businesses, and its elected leadership. The Department s attempts to substantially interfere with the ability of triballyowned and operated entities to conduct their own businesses by demanding that they cease and desist from engaging in business, and pay civil penalties to the Department, constitutes a significant disturbance to tribal self-government that cannot be repaired with money damages. Such interference with an entity's ability to conduct business constitutes harm which damages 5 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
11 cannot restore. See Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entm t, Inc., 60 F.3d 27, 37 (2nd Cir. 1995) (finding irreparable harm in part because the right to continue a business is not measurable entirely in monetary terms ). In addition, the Order purports to assert jurisdiction over Chairman Shotton in his personal capacity, the elected leader of the Tribe, by demanding he cease from carrying out certain activities and pay a substantial monetary penalty. If the Department is not enjoined as Plaintiffs request, Chairman Shotton may be deterred from naturally fulfilling his duties as the leader of his Tribe for fear of further administrative action, despite the Order s complete lack of basis. Shotton Aff. 26. Accordingly, monetary damages are not sufficient to compensate Plaintiffs for the harm caused by the Department, and Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. As such, injunctive relief, and temporary injunction is warranted and proper. B. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm if a Temporary Injunction Is Not Granted. Where an injury is of such a nature that it cannot be adequately compensated in damages, or cannot be measured by any pecuniary standard, it is irreparable.... Whether damages are to be viewed by a court of equity as irreparable or not depends more upon the nature of the right which is injuriously affected than upon the pecuniary measure of the loss suffered. The Connecticut Association of Clinical Laboratories v. Connecticut Blue Cross, Inc., 31 Conn. Supp. 110, (1983) (internal quotations omitted.), citing New London v. Perkins, 87 Conn. 229, 235 (1913). To demonstrate irreparable harm, the moving party must identify a noncompensable injury for which there is no legal measure of damages, or none that can be determined with a sufficient degree of certainty... BPC Capital Management I, LLC v. Appeal from Probate, Superior Court of Connecticut, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. 6 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
12 CV (May 16, 2014, Sommer, J.), citing Michigan Bell Telephone Co. v. MFS Intelenet of Michigan, Inc., 16 F.Supp.2d 828 (W.D. Mich. 1998). The Department s unlawful attempts to assert regulatory authority over Plaintiffs will cause irreparable harm in that it constitutes significant interference with tribal self-government. Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians v. Pierce, 253 F.3d 1234, (10th Cir. 2001) (finding irreparable injury where state regulation created the prospect of significant interference with [tribal] self-government ); Seneca-Cayuga Tribe v. Oklahoma, 874 F.2d 709, 716 (10th Cir. 1989) (finding irreparable injury where state regulation threatened loss of revenues and jobs and created the prospect of significant interference with [tribal] self-government ); see also Seneca Nation of Indians v. Paterson, 2010 WL , at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 14, 2010) ( Where, as here, enforcement of a statute or regulation threatens to infringe upon a tribe s right of sovereignty, federal courts have found the irreparable harm requirement satisfied. ); United States v. Michigan, 534 F. Supp. 668, 669 (W.D. Mich. 1982) (protecting tribal rights under treaty to the fullest extent possible encouraged the concept of tribal sovereignty, and the denial of those rights is presumed to cause irreparable harm). Allowing the Department to proceed with enforcement of the Order will result in an unprecedented finding that state administrative agencies can, by their own fiat, abrogate the sovereign immunity of tribal entities and officials, in direct contravention with well-settled federal and state legal precedent. The failure to grant Plaintiffs Application for Temporary Injunction will result in a substantial injury to Plaintiffs and such an injury to tribal self-government is unquantifiable and cannot be reversed. In addition, the Department s unlawful assertion of regulatory jurisdiction over Plaintiffs has directly impacted their ability to conduct business. Threatening the viability of a business 7 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
13 constitutes irreparable harm. See Tri-State Generation and Transmission Ass n, Inc. v. Shoshone River Power, Inc., 805 F.2d 351, 356 (10th Cir. 1986), citing Semmes Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 429 F.2d 1197, 1205 (2d Cir. 1970) (loss of right to continue business supports claim of irreparable injury); Tom Doherty Assocs., Inc. v. Saban Entm t, Inc., 60 F.3d at 37 (finding irreparable harm in part because the right to continue a business is not measurable entirely in monetary terms. ). Moreover, the Department s unlawful prosecution of Chairman Shotton personally and its foreseeable attempts to collect an unlawful judgment against him, if not enjoined, will undoubtedly cause him irreparable harm. Chairman Shotton was, at all times, acting in his official capacity and was therefore cloaked with sovereign immunity against any state administrative action including the underlying action initiated by the Department absent a clear and unequivocal waiver of this immunity or Congressional abrogation of said immunity. Indeed, nowhere in underlying action did the Department ever allege because it could not allege that the Chairman was acting in any capacity other than his official capacity. Nevertheless, the Department has conveniently ignored this very material fact, resulting in the issuance of a substantial civil monetary judgment for which the Chairman is now liable. Under no legally-cognizable theory can or should the Chairman be held personally responsible in this case. In addition to affecting the Chairman s personal financial well-being, the Order also affects him in carrying out his day-to-day duties and responsibilities as the leader of a sovereign nation, the members of which are fully aware that their Chairman has been impacted in such an outrageous manner. The Order has already resulted in reputational harm from publication of the baseless alleged personal liability resulting from the Department s Order. Shotton Aff., 26. Similarly, it is reasonable to assume the chilling effect this baseless Order may have on any 8 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
14 Tribal official working on behalf of the government as it has the effect of negatively impacting not only their personal well-being, but also the significant Tribal governmental functions the leader of a sovereign nation serves on a day to day basis. By way of its administrative proceeding and resulting Order, the Department has made a point of harming the reputation of Chairman Shotton and the Tribe. Indeed, the very day that the Department issued its Order (and prior to the Order being made publically available on the Department s website), Bloomberg published an article touting that the Department imposed fines upon the Chairman and the Tribe's two companies (and, not surprisingly, omitted Plaintiffs previous jurisdictional challenge to the Department s efforts), featuring a quote from the Department's general counsel, stating that "[w]e shouldn't have to bend to the will of any tribe that creates a company." 2 It is clear that the Department is motivated to move forward as quickly as possible with and enforcement action related to the Order and to continue on a media campaign related thereto. This reputational and business injury to the Plaintiffs is irreparable and will persist absent injunctive relief from this Court. Because the Order has caused and will continue to cause unquantifiable harm to the Tribe s governmental operations, to the continued viability of the Tribal businesses, and to Chairman Shotton personally issuance of a temporary injunction is critically necessary and should be granted. C. Plaintiffs Are Likely To Prevail On the Merits. In determining the likelihood that the appellant will prevail, the court need only find that there is a reasonable degree of probability of success. Transportation General, Inc. v. Commissioner of Transportation, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at 2 See Zeke Faux, Payday Lending by Tribe Targeted by Connecticut, BLOOMBERG, Jan. 6, 2015, 9 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
15 Hartford, Docket No. CV (January 17, 1995, Maloney, J.), citing Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals and Health Care, 196 Conn. 451, 457, 493 A.2d 493 (1985). Plaintiffs two-count Complaint squarely arises from the Department s unlawful assertion of authority over Plaintiffs on the basis of their sovereign immunity from suit. Pursuant to binding federal and state legal precedent, Plaintiffs can easily demonstrate that they share in the Tribe s sovereign immunity from unconsented suit including in state administrative actions similar to the Department s instant enforcement action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs will likely succeed on the merits of their underlying claims and a temporary injunction should be issued by this Court. i. Arms of the Tribe and Tribal Officials Enjoy the Tribe s Sovereign Immunity. Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations that exercise inherent sovereign authority. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991). The right of tribes to govern their members and territories flows from a preexisting sovereignty limited, but not abolished, by their inclusion within the territorial bounds of the United States.... Once recognized by the political body of the United States, a tribe retains its sovereignty until Congress acts to divest that sovereignty. Cohen s Handbook of Federal Indian Law 4.01[1][a] at 207. Thus, unless and until Congress acts, the tribes retain their historic sovereign authority. Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2030 (2014), citing United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978). The Supreme Court has historically viewed sovereign immunity as a basic aspect of tribal sovereignty. See, e.g., Okla. Tax Comm n, supra, 498 U.S. at 509. As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity.... [T]ribal immunity is a matter of federal law and is not subject to 10 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
16 diminution by the States. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, 523 U.S. 751, 760 (1998). Indian tribes are not states. They have a status higher than that of states. They are subordinate and dependent nations possessed of all powers [except] to the extent that they have expressly been required to surrender them by the superior sovereign, the United States. Breakthrough Management Group, Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort, 629 F.3d 1173, 1182 (10th Cir. 2010). Unless and until Congress exercises this power, state governments have no authority to bring a suit against an Indian tribe. Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, supra, 134 S.Ct. at ( Thus, we have time and again treated the doctrine of tribal immunity as settled law and dismissed any suit against a tribe absent congressional authorization (or a waiver). ). Tribal sovereign immunity extends beyond Indian tribes themselves to entities that are deemed arms of the tribe. See Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006); cf. McGinty v. New York, 251 F.3d 84, 95 (2nd Cir. 2001); Breakthrough Management Group, Inc., supra, 629 F.3d at (holding that tribal economic development authority and tribally-owned casino were arms of the tribe). These tribal instrumentalities are afforded sovereign immunity from civil suit unless Congress has clearly abrogated that immunity or if the Tribe has issued a clear and unequivocal waiver of immunity. See, e.g., C & L Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizen Band of Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411, 418 (2000); Oklahoma Tax Comm n, 498 U.S. at 509. In determining whether a tribal entity is an arm of the tribe, courts will consider whether the entity was created by tribal law; whether the tribe owns and controls the entity; the purpose of the tribal entity; whether the entity s economic activity benefits the tribe; and whether the tribe intended for the entity to have arm-of-the-tribe status. Id. at PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
17 ; Cook v. AVI Casino Enters., Inc., 548 F.3d 718, (9th Cir. 2008); Breakthrough Mgmt. Group., Inc., supra, 629 F.3d at Indeed, in a previous case involving lending entities that were concededly not owned by a tribal government, the Department itself recognized that legitimate Native American lending entities possessed a legal claim to sovereign immunity. See In re CashCall, Inc., Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order at *17 (Conn. Dept. of Banking Feb. 4, 2014) ( Neither CashCall, Inc. nor Western Sky Financial, LLC could legally claim the immunity extended to an Indian tribe. To conclude otherwise would do a disservice to legitimate Native American lending entities. ). (Emphasis added.) Here, there is no dispute or question that Great Plains and Clear Creek are arms of the Tribe. They were each created by tribal law. Shotton Aff., The Tribe wholly owns and controls both entities. Id. The purpose for creating each entity was to advance the Tribe s economic development and to aid in addressing issues of public health, safety, and welfare. Id. at 11. The economic activity of the entities benefits the Tribe, as all profits are allocated to the Tribe. Shotton Aff., 2, 7. And finally, the Tribe clearly intended each entity to have arm-ofthe-tribe status. Shotton Aff., Further, Great Plains and Clear Creek s arm-of-the-tribe status is uncontested in these proceedings. See, Complaint, Ex D., p. 4, 1 ( Great Plains is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe.... ))). Therefore, as arms of the Tribe, Great Plains and Clear Creek are entitled to share in the Tribe s sovereign immunity and are immune from the Department s unlawful administrative enforcement action. Similarly, tribal officials acting within their official capacity are also entitled to tribal sovereign immunity. Romanella v. Hayward, 933 F. Supp. 163, 167 (D. Conn. 1996). Fletcher 12 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
18 v. United States 116 F.3d 1315, 1324 (10th Cir. 1997); Cook v. AVI Casino Enterprises, Inc., 548 F. 3d at ; Native American Distributing v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co., 546 F. 3d 1288, 1296 (10th Cir. 2008). The Department cannot circumvent tribal immunity by merely naming officers or employees of the Tribe when the complaint concerns actions taken in defendants official or representative capacities and the complaint does not allege they acted outside the scope of their authority. ). Chayoon v. Chao, 355 F.3d 141, 143 (2d Cir. 2004). This immunity is not afforded only to high-ranking tribal officials, but to any tribal employee acting in their representative capacity and within the scope of their authority. Kizis v. Morse Diesel Int l, 260 Conn. 46, 54 (2002) (citation omitted). Determination of whether a tribal official is acting within the scope of [his or her] authority requires reference only to tribal law, as actions allegedly violating state law are not necessarily outside the scope of a tribal official s lawful authority because that authority is defined by the sovereign tribe, not by state law. Cash Advance & Preferred Cash Loans v. State, 242 P.3d 1099, 1112 (Colo. 2010). Chairman Shotton, the elected leader of the Tribe s governing body its Tribal Council is very clearly vested with immunity from suit. The Department acknowledges in its Notice that the administrative action was brought against Chairman Shotton in his capacity as a tribal official acting within the scope of his authority. See Complaint, Ex D, p. 4, 3 ( At all relevant times hereto, Shotton served as Chairman.... Shotton also approved the Operating Agreement of Great Plains and serves as Great Plains Secretary/Treasurer. ). Further, all of the business activities pertaining to the Department s Order and related to Chairman Shotton could relate only to Chairman Shotton s official duties as Secretary/Treasurer of Great Plains and Clear Creek. Indeed, all of his duties in connection with these businesses are explicitly delegated to him under Tribal law and are undertaken strictly for the benefit of the Tribe. In neither the 13 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
19 Notice, nor its subsequent decisions does Department does not allege that Chairman Shotton acted outside the scope of his official capacity. The Department explicitly omits such allegations because they simply cannot be furthered. With no allegation, let alone evidence to the contrary, the record clearly demonstrates that at all relevant times, Chairman Shotton acted within the scope of his authority as a Tribal official. Accordingly, Chairman Shotton is clearly protected by tribal sovereign immunity and the Department s action against him personally was baseless, improper, and barred by state, federal and Tribal law. Because the extension of the Tribe s sovereign immunity from suit extends to all Plaintiffs, the Department erred in its issuance of the Order. Plaintiffs have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying Complaint demonstrating the Department s arbitrary and capricious exercise of jurisdiction, and Plaintiffs plainly meet this standard for temporary injunction. ii. Plaintiffs Sovereign Immunity Extends to State Administrative Process, Including the Department s Order. Tribal sovereign immunity extends beyond state court proceedings to all aspects of the judicial process. See United States v. James, 980 F.2d 1314, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that tribe was protected from having to comply with a subpoena duces tecum issued in a federal criminal prosecution in which the tribe was not a party). Such immunity further extends to state administrative process, including a state agency s authority to administratively enforce its decisions. See, e.g., Middletown Rancheria of Pomo Indians v. Workers Comp. Appeals Bd., 60 Cal.App.4th 1340, (1998) (holding that tribe had sovereign immunity from workers compensation process and that Worker s Compensation Appeals Board lacked jurisdiction over tribe to enforce laws based on sovereign immunity); Bishop Paiute Tribe v. County of Inyo, PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
20 F.3d 549, 558 (9th Cir. 2002), rev d on other grounds sub nom. Inyo Co. v. Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Cmty., 538 U.S. 701 (2003)(holding that tribe s sovereign immunity prevented execution of search warrant issued by superior court against tribal entity). Contrary to established case law, however, the Department asserted that its Order is a contested case that is somehow distinct from a suit for purposes of asserting sovereign immunity in defense against a state enforcement action. This is without basis in law or reasoned analysis. 3 The Order is a blatant attempt to circumvent settled and binding precedent to wrongfully assert jurisdiction over Plaintiffs. In doing so, the Commissioner disregarded abundant case law and two identical attempted state enforcement actions brought against enterprises owned and operated by the Miami Tribe and Santee Sioux Nation brought by California and Minnesota. See, Shotton Aff., 21. In People v. Miami Nation Enters., 166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 800 (2014), the California Department of Corporations brought suit against entities owned and operated by the Miami Tribe that were providing short-term loans to California citizens over the Internet. Upon a finding that the Miami Tribe s entities were arms of the Tribe, the California Court of Appeals rightly held that the State s administrative enforcement action was barred by unwaived sovereign immunity. Id. at 817. Similarly, in an administrative enforcement action nearly identical to the present proceedings, in July 2012, the Minnesota Department of Commerce issued against Great Plains a Notice of an Order for Hearing, Order for Prehearing Conference and Statement of Charges alleging that Great Plains violated a Minnesota statute regarding consumer loans, Minn. Stat , subd. 3 (2010). After the Tribe advised the Minnesota Department of Commerce that it was immune from such an enforcement 3 The Commissioner does engage in a haphazard examination of the Black s Law Dictionary definition of suit, but fails to reasonably note that a Department enforcement action that alleges to impose injunctive and civil penalties, after reviewing pursuant to a judicial standard of review and questionable legal analysis must, in effect, constitute an adversarial action to which sovereign immunity is rightfully asserted as a defense. 15 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
21 action due to its sovereign immunity, the charges were thereafter dismissed. See Shotton Aff., 21. Finally, Plaintiffs previously cited and explained the reasoning behind the first substantive review of tribal lending enterprises by state jurisdictions, and their right to share in the tribe s sovereign immunity Cash Advance & Preferred Cash Loans v. State of Colorado, ex. rel. Suthers, 242 P.3d 1099 (Colo.2010) ( U.S. Supreme Court precedent is clear that tribal sovereign immunity applies to state law enforcement actions ). Id., citing Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Citizen Bank Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505 (1991); Mescalero Apache Tribe v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145, (1973). In Cash Advance, after the Colorado Attorney General s Office sought to enforce state law against entities owned by the Miami Tribe and the Santee Sioux Nation, and upon assertion of sovereign immunity, the court determined that the entities were arms of the tribe. Following remand from the Colorado Supreme Court, the trial court granted the tribes motion to dismiss, holding that as wholly owned entities of the tribes created pursuant to tribal law, the lending entities at issue were indeed entitled to sovereign immunity immunity which had not been waived or congressionally abrogated with respect to the State s enforcement actions. State of Colorado, et al v. Cash Advance, et al. (Case No. 05CV1143) (Order dated February 13, 2012). The trial court noted that state enforcement actions were equivalent to suits, to which federally recognized tribes are immune. Id. at *9. Additionally, in determining that contested cases are not suits, the Commissioner arbitrarily and capriciously disregarded the reasoning of Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina State Ports Authority, 535 U.S. 743 (2002), in which the Supreme Court held that state sovereign immunity precluded the Federal Maritime Commission ( FMC ) from adjudicating a 16 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
22 private party s complaint against a state for alleged violations of federal admiralty law. Id. at Federal Maritime Commission relied on the overwhelming similarities between FMC adjudication and civil litigation, including the rules of practice and procedure, the use of an administrative law judge, and the fact that the orders are non-self-executing. Id. at Based on the Commissioner s treatment of the proceeding and attempt at meaningful analysis, it is impossible to reasonably conclude that the Department s action is not a suit for purposes of asserting sovereign immunity. The Commissioner treats this contested case as a typical court proceeding, expressly adopting the standard applied in Connecticut Superior Court when reviewing a motion to dismiss. Order at 3 ( When a court decides a jurisdictional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss, it must consider the allegations of the complaint in their most favorable light.... ). Moreover, the Commissioner invokes the difference between the right to demand compliance with state laws and the means available to enforce them, maintaining that because his demand for compliance is essentially non-enforceable, it is outside of any judicial process. Order at 8. However, this line of reasoning, as stated above, was rejected wholesale in Federal Maritime Commission, as both are not self-executing. As the United States Supreme Court has held, tribal sovereign immunity very clearly applies to state law enforcement actions. As such, it was arbitrary and capricious for the Department to hold otherwise in its Order. Binding and persuasive case law make clear that Plaintiffs share in the Tribe s sovereign immunity from suit, which squarely includes improper actions brought by the Department. Because Plaintiffs can so clearly demonstrate the error of the Commission s Order, and have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
23 Complaint, Plaintiffs meet this requirement for temporary injunctive relief. Accordingly, such relief should be granted. D. The Balance of Equities Tips Plainly in Plaintiffs Favor. Because of the enormous harm that would befall Plaintiffs through the Department s actions, the balance of equities tips considerably in Plaintiffs favor and this Court should grant the Application for Temporary Injunction. If the Court grants Plaintiffs Application, the Plaintiffs can move forward with the legal proceedings in the instant action, without concern that the Department will attempt to enforce civil penalties over which it lacked jurisdiction to impose in the first instance. This is particularly true for Chairman Shotton, who, in addition to the substantive duties and responsibilities he must shoulder as Tribal Chairman, will not have to carry the apprehension of a $700,000 personal fine looming over him during the pendency of his appeal. On the other hand, the denial of an injunction will inflict irreparable harm on Plaintiffs and will expose Chairman Shotton personally to an enormous financial liability which he should never have been subject to in the first place. In contrast, an injunction will have no detrimental impact on the Department, which would only need to temporarily refrain from purporting to assert regulatory authority over Plaintiffs until resolution of the pending Complaint. By the Department s own admission, it cannot do anything more itself to compel Plaintiffs compliance with its Order, thus the potential harm to the Department and its overreach of authority is nonexistent. Because the balance of equities tips clearly in Plaintiffs favor, the Court should grant the Application for Temporary Injunction. IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Application be granted on grounds that Plaintiffs: (1) have no adequate remedy at law; (2) are likely to suffer irreparable 18 PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
24 harm without injunctive relief; (3) are likely to prevail on the merits of the underlying Complaint; and (4) the balance of equities tips strongly in Plaintiffs favor. Thus, an order temporarily enjoining the Department from enforcement of its Order, pending resolution of the underlying Complaint, is both necessary and appropriate. Dated: January 23, By: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ROSETTE, LLP /s/ Saba Bazzazieh Saba Bazzazieh (Pro Hac Vice Pending) Rosette, LLP 1100 H St., NW, Suite 400 Washington, D.C (480) sbazzazieh@rosettelaw.com /s/ Anthony Jannotta Anthony Jannotta (CT Bar No ) Dentons US LLP 1301 K. Street, NW Suite 600, East Tower Washington, D.C (202) anthony.jannotta@dentons.com PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105 Robert A. Rosette (Pro Hac Vice pending) Saba Bazzazieh (Pro Hac Vice pending) ROSETTE, LLP 1100 H St. N.W., Ste. 400 Washington, D.C (202) (202) rosette@rosettelaw.com sbazzazieh@rosettelaw.com Anthony Jannotta (CT Bar No ) Dentons US LLP 1301 K Street, N.W. Ste. 600, East Tower Washington, D.C (202) anthony.jannotta@dentons.com GREAT PLAINS LENDING, LLC; JOHN R. SHOTTON; CLEAR CREEK LENDING, vs. Plaintiffs, CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF BANKING; HOWARD F. PITKIN, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Department of Banking; BRUCE ADAMS, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Department of Banking, Defendants. : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Case No. SUPERIOR COURT JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW BRITAIN JANUARY 23, CERTIFICATION OF ANTHONY JANNOTTA PURSUANT TO CONN. PRACTICE BOOK 4-5 I, Anthony Jannotta, being first duly sworn upon oath, hereby depose and state: 1. I make this Certification in support of Plaintiffs Application for Temporary Injunction filed in the above-captioned action. The following facts are based on my own 1 CERTIFICATION OF ANTHONY JANNOTTA
106 personal knowledge, except those stated upon information and belief, and as to all such facts stated upon information and belief, I am informed and believe that the same are true. If called to testify, I could and would do so competently in a court of law. 2. I am an attorney licensed and in good standing in the State of Connecticut (State Bar No ). I currently serve as co-counsel for Plaintiffs Great Plains Lending, LLC, ( Great Plains ) John R. Shotton ( Shotton ), and Clear Creek Lending ( Clear Creek and, together with Great Plains and Shotton, the Plaintiffs ) in the above-captioned action. 3. On or about October 24, 2014, the Connecticut Department of Banking ( Department ) issued a Temporary Order to Cease and Desist, Order to Make Restitution, Notice of Intent to Issue Order to Cease and Desist, Notice of Intent to Impose Civil Penalty, and Notice of Right to Hearing ( Initial Order ) against Great Plains, Clear Creek, and Shotton in his individual capacity alleging violations of Connecticut law. 4. On November 10, 2014, Plaintiffs filed with the Department a motion to dismiss evidencing the Department s lack of jurisdiction based upon the Tribe s and its entities enjoyment of sovereign immunity. 5. After the Department filed its opposition and Plaintiffs filed their reply, on January 6, 2015, Commissioner Howard F. Pitkin of the Connecticut Department of Banking issued its Ruling denying the motion to dismiss. Subsequently, the Department issued an Order to Cease and Desist and Order Imposing Civil Penalty (collectively, the Final Order ). 6. On January 22, 2015, I spoke with Perry Zinn-Rowthorn, Deputy Attorney General, for the State of Connecticut, Office of the Attorney General, via telephone to advise that my clients intended to file the above-captioned action and seek ex parte temporary injunctive relief to stay enforcement of the Final Order, pending resolution of this matter. After conferring 2 CERTIFICATION OF ANTHONY JANNOTTA
107 1 2 3 with his client, Mr. Zinn-Rowthorn stated that the Department would not agree to stay the Final Order, pending the instant appeal. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Connecticut that the foregoing is true and correct. /s/ Anthony Jannotta Anthony Jannotta 3 CERTIFICATION OF ANTHONY JANNOTTA
Case 5:15-cv L Document 1 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:15-cv-00241-L Document 1 Filed 03/09/15 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1 JOHN R. SHOTTON, an individual, v. Plaintiff, (2 HOWARD F. PITKIN, in his individual
More informationOBJECTION TO MOTION FOR ORDER
HHB-CV15-6028096-S GREAT PLAINS LENDING, LLC, et : SUPERIOR COURT al., : PLAINTIFFS : : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF v. : NEW BRITAIN : STATE OF CONNECTICUT : DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, et al., : DEFENDANTS : JUNE
More informationCase 2:17-cv RBS-DEM Document 21 Filed 08/07/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID# 175
Case 2:17-cv-00302-RBS-DEM Document 21 Filed 08/07/17 Page 1 of 20 PageID# 175 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division MATTHEW HOWARD, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:08-cv-00429-D Document 85 Filed 04/16/2010 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA TINA MARIE SOMERLOTT ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Case No. CIV-08-429-D
More informationCase 5:09-cv RDR-KGS Document 19 Filed 11/05/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 5:09-cv-04107-RDR-KGS Document 19 Filed 11/05/09 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS ROBERT NANOMANTUBE, vs. Plaintiff, Case No. 09-4107-RDR THE KICKAPOO TRIBE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case 5:11-cv-01078-D Document 16 Filed 11/04/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA APACHE TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, vs. Plaintiff, TGS ANADARKO LLC; and WELLS
More informationCase3:11-cv JW Document14 Filed08/29/11 Page1 of 8
Case:-cv-00-JW Document Filed0// Page of 0 Robert A. Rosette (CA SBN ) Richard J. Armstrong (CA SBN ) Nicole St. Germain (CA SBN ) ROSETTE, LLP Attorneys at Law Blue Ravine Rd., Suite Folsom, CA 0 () -0
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA : : : : : : : : : :
Case 516-cv-00415-M Document 15 Filed 08/26/16 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1) KEITH FINN, v. Plaintiff, (1) GREAT PLAINS LENDING, LLC, Specially-Appearing Defendant.
More informationcv IN THE. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT. ELIZABETH A. TREMBLAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Case 14-2031, Document 43, 11/03/2014, 1361074, Page 1 of 21 14-2031-cv To Be Argued By: PROLOY K. DAS, ESQ. IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT ELIZABETH A. TREMBLAY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
More informationAPPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Vilas County: NEAL A. NIELSEN, III, Judge. Affirmed. Before Hoover, P.J., Stark and Hruz, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 10, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in
More informationCase 3:09-cv WKW-TFM Document 12 Filed 05/04/2009 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT
Case 3:09-cv-00305-WKW-TFM Document 12 Filed 05/04/2009 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT T.P. JOHNSON HOLDINGS, LLC. JACK M. JOHNSON AND TERI S. JOHNSON, AS SHAREHOLDERS/MEMBERS,
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, et al.
Appellate Case: 18-4013 Document: 010110021345 Date Filed: 07/11/2018 Page: 1 No. 18-4013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-000-wqh -BGS Document 0 Filed 0// Page of 0 0 GLORIA MORRISON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, vs. VIEJAS ENTERPRISES, an entity; VIEJAS BAND OF KUMEYAAY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION ORDER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. No. 14-00783-CV-W-DW CWB SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants. ORDER Before the Court
More informationCase 1:18-cv DLH-CSM Document 12 Filed 05/07/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
Case 1:18-cv-00057-DLH-CSM Document 12 Filed 05/07/18 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA Shingobee Builders, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00057-DLH-CSM v. Plaintiff, North
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 2:15-cv-02463-RGK-MAN Document 31 Filed 07/02/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:335 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 15-02463-RGK (MANx)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-who Document Filed /0/ Page of BOUTIN JONES INC. Daniel S. Stouder, SBN dstouder@boutinjones.com Amy L. O Neill, SBN aoneill@boutinjones.com Capitol Mall, Suite 00 Sacramento, CA -0 Telephone:
More information: : : : : : : : : PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF. sole issue presented in this appeal. Defendant s Brief ( Def. Br. ) at 14 (citing Mehdi v.
DOCKET NO. HHB-CV-17-6038913-S GREAT PLAINS LENDING LLC, CLEAR CREEK LENDING and JOHN R. SHOTTON V. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEPARTMENT OF BANKING, JORGE PEREZ, in his official capacity as Commissioner of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION
Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 45 Filed 10/06/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA GREAT FALLS DIVISION TERRYL T. MATT, CV 15-28-GF-BMM Plaintiff, vs. ORDER UNITED
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 4:11-cv-00675-CVE-TLW Document 16 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/12/12 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA EASTERN SHAWNEE TRIBE OF ) OKLAHOMA, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ELTON LOUIS, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 08-C-558 STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY, Defendant. DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff Elton Louis filed this action
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN PLAINTIFF S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANTS JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS
Case 1:17-cv-01083-JTN-ESC ECF No. 31 filed 05/04/18 PageID.364 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN JOY SPURR Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:17-cv-01083 Hon. Janet
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 4:11-cv-00782-JHP -PJC Document 22 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 03/15/12 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA EDDIE SANTANA ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 11-CV-782-JHP-PJC
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:14-cv-00594-CG-M Document 11 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTINE WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:16-cv-01045-F Document 19 Filed 09/16/16 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JOHN DAUGOMAH, Plaintiff, vs. Case No. CIV-16-1045-D LARRY ROBERTS,
More informationCase 1:11-cv ASG Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2011 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:11-cv-23107-ASG Document 15 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/28/2011 Page 1 of 7 MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT
Case 4:12-cv-00074-DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 06/07/12 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA AGAMENV, LLC, aka Dakota Gaming, LLC, Ray Brown, Steven Haynes, vs.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BATES ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant- Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION September 14, 2010 9:15 a.m. v No. 288826 Wayne Circuit Court 132 ASSOCIATES, L.L.C.,
More informationCase 5:14-cv D Document 2 Filed 03/20/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:14-cv-00281-D Document 2 Filed 03/20/14 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1) THE CADDO NATION OF OKLAHOMA, and ) (2) BRENDA EDWARDS, in her capacity
More informationCase 2:05-cr LHT-DLH Document 33 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:05-cr-00005-LHT-DLH Document 33 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA BRYSON CITY DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Plaintiff,
More informationJAMES LAWRENCE BROWN, Plaintiff/Appellant, OFFICER K. ROBERTSON #Y234, YAVAPAI-APACHE NATION POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants/Appellees.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1) KAREN HARRIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 11-CV-654-GKF-FHM ) (2) MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION d/b/a ) RIVER SPIRIT CASINO,
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD. and Case No. 34-RC-2230 PETITION TO REVOKE SUBPOENA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD FOXWOODS RESORT CASINO and Case No. 34-RC-2230 INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA
More informationPUBLISH TENTH CIRCUIT. Plaintiffs-Appellees, No
PUBLISH FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit September 19, 2007 Elisabeth A. Shumaker UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Clerk of Court TENTH CIRCUIT MINER ELECTRIC, INC.; RUSSELL E. MINER, v.
More informationCase 1:16-cv JAP-KK Document 42 Filed 10/17/17 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
Case 1:16-cv-01093-JAP-KK Document 42 Filed 10/17/17 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO AMERIND RISK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a federally chartered Section 17 Tribal Corporation,
More informationCase ABA Doc 10 Filed 02/10/16 Entered 02/10/16 14:10:34 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6
Document Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Caption in Compliance with D.N.J. LBR 9004-1(b) McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP Kate R. Buck 100 Mulberry Street Four Gateway Center Newark,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:15-cv-01012-D Document 1 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1) JAMES DILLON, on Behalf of ) Himself and All Others Similarly ) Situated, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationIn The Poarch Band of Creek Indians Tribal Supreme Court
In The Poarch Band of Creek Indians Tribal Supreme Court EARNEST RAY WHITE, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Case No. SC-12-01 POARCH BAND OF CREEK INDIANS, et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants Appeal from Poarch
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff, Defendant.
Case :-cv-0-bas-ags Document 0 Filed 0/0/ PageID. Page of 0 CHRISTOBAL MUNOZ, v. BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, Defendant. Case
More informationCase 5:07-cv VAP-JCR Document 29 Filed 02/18/2008 Page 1 of 11
Case :0-cv-0-VAP-JCR Document Filed 0//00 Page of 0 0 LESTER J. MARSTON - California State Bar No. 000 E-mail: marston@pacbell.net RAPPORT AND MARSTON 0 West Perkins Street P.O. Box Ukiah, CA Telephone:
More informationCase 1:14-at Document 6 Filed 02/19/14 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-at-000 Document 6 Filed 0/9/ Page of 9 5 6 7 Robert A. Rosette (CA SBN 7) Geoffrey Hash (CA SBN 7) ROSETTE, LLP 9 Blue Ravine Rd., Suite 55 Telephone: (96) 5-08 Facsimile: (96) 5-085 rosette@rosettelaw.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:14-cv-00066-CG-B Document 31 Filed 04/25/14 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION STATE OF ALABAMA, ex rel ) ASHLEY RICH, District Attorney
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Case 3:15-cv-00116-D Document 50 Filed 11/17/15 Page 1 of 13 PageID 326 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION IN RE: INTRAMTA SWITCHED ACCESS CHARGES LITIGATION
More informationCase 1:07-cv WMS Document 63-4 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-00451-WMS Document 63-4 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CITIZENS AGAINST CASINO GAMBLING IN ERIE COUNTY, et al., Civil
More informationCase No. CIV HE Judge Joe Heaton, United States District Judge, Presiding
Case 5:14-cv-01278-HE Document 13 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 22 Case No. CIV-14-1278-HE Judge Joe Heaton, United States District Judge, Presiding IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT
More informationCorporation, and National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (collectively, "National. Complaint herein state as follows:
Case 1:15-cv-00815-RJA Document 1 Filed 09/10/15 Page 1 of 20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK NATIONAL FUEL GAS COMPANY, NATIONAL FUEL GAS DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, and NATIONAL
More informationCase 1:12-cv JDL Document 34 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 330 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE
Case 1:12-cv-00354-JDL Document 34 Filed 08/06/14 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 330 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE Elizabeth Rassi, ) ) Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00354 Plaintiff
More informationFILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2013 INDEX NO /2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 270 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2013
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/01/2013 INDEX NO. 652140/2013 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 270 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/01/2013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE,
More information8:13-cv JFB-TDT Doc # 51 Filed: 10/08/13 Page 1 of 14 - Page ID # 1162 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
8:13-cv-00215-JFB-TDT Doc # 51 Filed: 10/08/13 Page 1 of 14 - Page ID # 1162 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA ACTIVISION TV, INC., Plaintiff, v. PINNACLE BANCORP, INC.,
More informationCase 1:13-cv S-LDA Document 16 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Case 1:13-cv-00185-S-LDA Document 16 Filed 08/29/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 178 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ) DOUGLAS J. LUCKERMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) C.A. No. 13-185
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 4:11-cv-00675-CVE-TLW Document 26 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 08/22/12 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA EASTERN SHAWNEE TRIBE OF ) OKLAHOMA, ) ) Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:14-cv-00594-CG-M Document 15 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION CHRISTINE WILLIAMS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) CIVIL ACTION
More informationCase 2:12-cv JAM-AC Document 57 Filed 01/30/13 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-00-jam-ac Document Filed 0/0/ Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY, a federally recognized
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION 500 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION 500 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 ) [Various Tenants] ) ) Plaintiffs ) ) v. ) Case No. ) [Landord] ) ) Defendant ) ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA PRESCOTT DIVISION. Plaintiffs,
Case 3:12-cv-08176-SMM Document 44 Filed 12/04/12 Page 1 of 8 TOM HORNE Attorney General Firm Bar No. 14000 James F. Odenkirk State Bar No. 0013992 Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ORDER
Case 5:17-cv-00887-HE Document 33 Filed 11/13/17 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA COMANCHE NATION OF OKLAHOMA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) NO. CIV-17-887-HE
More informationCase 4:15-cv BMM Document 37 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 12 FILED
Case 4:15-cv-00028-BMM Document 37 Filed 08/31/15 Page 1 of 12 FILED James L. Vogel, Attorney-At-Law P.O. Box 525 Hardin, Montana 59034 (406)665-3900 Great FaMs Fax (406)665-3901 (jim vmt@email.com) Attorney
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-1485 In the Supreme Court of the United States CHRIS YOUNG, AS A PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JEFFRY YOUNG, PETITIONER v. JOSEPH S. FITZPATRICK, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationMOTION TO STAY ACTION PENDING MEDIATION. Defendants JASON MILLIGAN, MILLIGAN REAL ESTATE LLC, KOMI
(X08) DOCKET NO: FST-CV18-6038249-S : SUPERIOR COURT : REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY : JUDICIAL DISTRICT O OF THE CITY OF NORWALK, ET AL. : STAMFORD/NORWALK : V. : AT STAMFORD : ILSR OWNERS LLC, ET. AL. : DECEMBER
More informationMichigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community
Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Fall 2014 Case Summaries Wesley J. Furlong University of Montana School of Law, wjf@furlongbutler.com Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:17CV240
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION 1:17CV240 JOSEPH CLARK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) MEMORANDUM AND ) RECOMMENDATION HARRAH S NC CASINO COMPANY,
More information6:14-cv KEW Document 26 Filed in ED/OK on 06/17/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
6:14-cv-00182-KEW Document 26 Filed in ED/OK on 06/17/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1) CHOCTAW NATION OF ) OKLAHOMA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case
More informationCASE 0:16-cv JRT-LIB Document 26 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:16-cv-01797-JRT-LIB Document 26 Filed 10/07/16 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Leigh Harper, Court File No. 16-cv-1797 (JRT/LIB) Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
More informationCase 5:08-cv D Document 71 Filed 03/24/2009 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 5:08-cv-00199-D Document 71 Filed 03/24/2009 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA SWANDA BROTHERS, INC., an Oklahoma Corporation, Plaintiff, vs. Case
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-55900, 04/11/2017, ID: 10392099, DktEntry: 59, Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Appellee, v. No. 14-55900 GREAT PLAINS
More informationCase 3:15-cv TSL-RHW Document 12 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 12
Case 3:15-cv-00105-TSL-RHW Document 12 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI JACKSON DIVISION KENNY PAYNE, on behalf of the Estate of
More informationCase 2:14-cv TLN-CKD Document 19 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 11
Case :-cv-0-tln-ckd Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 DIANE F. BOYER-VINE (SBN: Legislative Counsel ROBERT A. PRATT (SBN: 0 Principal Deputy Legislative Counsel CARA L. JENKINS (SBN: Deputy Legislative Counsel
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHERN DIVISION AMERICAN PULVERIZER CO., et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 12-3459-CV-S-RED ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
More informationCase 1:08-cv EJL Document 12 Filed 04/06/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO
Case 1:08-cv-00396-EJL Document 12 Filed 04/06/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF IDAHO STATE OF IDAHO by and through LAWRENCE G. WASDEN, Attorney General; and the IDAHO STATE TAX
More informationRESPONSE REGARDING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT AND JOIN ADDITIONAL PARTIES
Case 1:10-cv-01273-PLM Doc #71 Filed 07/29/11 Page 1 of 15 Page ID#1416 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff, v. BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) INTRODUCTION
Case :-cv-00-bas-ags Document - Filed /0/ PageID. Page of 0 0 0 Kathryn Clenney, SBN Barona Band of Mission Indians 0 Barona Road Lakeside, CA 00 Tel.: - FAX: -- kclenney@barona-nsn.gov Attorney for Specially-Appearing
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :0-cv-0-VAP-JCR Document Filed 0/0/00 Page of 0 0 GREGORY F. MULLALLY, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff, HAVASU LANDING CASINO, AN ENTERPRISE OF THE CHEMEHUEVI
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION Oneida Nation, Plaintiff v. Village of Hobart, Wisconsin, Case No. Defendant. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF
More informationCase 1:15-cv MV-KK Document 19 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Vs. Case No: 1:15-cv MV-KK
Case 1:15-cv-00799-MV-KK Document 19 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 9 NAVAJO NATION, And NORTHERN EDGE NAVAJO CASINO; Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO Vs. Case No: 1:15-cv-00799-MV-KK
More informationSupreme Court of the Unitd Statee
No. 12-1237 IN THE Supreme Court of the Unitd Statee FILED MAY 1 3 20~ OFFICE OF THE CLERK DANIEL T. MILLER; AMBER LANPHERE; PAUL M. MATHESON, Petitioners, Vo CHAD WRIGHT, PUYALLUP TRIBE TAX DEPARTMENT,
More informationTRIBAL COURT OF THE PASKENTA BAND OF NOMLAKI INDIANS
0 Robert A. Rosette (CA No. ) David M. Osterfeld (AZ No. 0) ROSETTE, LLP W. Chandler Blvd., Suite Chandler, AZ Telephone: (0) -0 Facsimile: (0) - rosette@rosettelaw.com dosterfeld@rosettelaw.com Attorneys
More informationCase 1:11-cv BJR Document 72 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:11-cv-00160-BJR Document 72 Filed 07/05/13 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CALIFORNIA VALLEY MIWOK TRIBE, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:11-CV-00160-BJR v.
More informationNo IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. HO-CHUNK, INC. et al., Appellant,
USCA Case #17-5140 Document #1711535 Filed: 01/04/2018 Page 1 of 17 No. 17-5140 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit HO-CHUNK, INC. et al., Appellant, v. JEFF SESSIONS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Case :-cv-00-jad-gwf Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Jeffrey D. Gross (AZ Bar No. 00) Christopher W. Thompson (AZ Bar No. 0) GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A. East Camelback Road Phoenix, Arizona 0- Telephone: (0)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
Case 4:07-cv-00642-CVE-PJC Document 46 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/04/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA WAGONER COUNTY RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 2, an agency of the
More informationCase 2:17-cv GJP Document 9 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 11
Case 2:17-cv-02582-GJP Document 9 Filed 12/11/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DANIEL S. PENNACHIETTI, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-02582
More informationCase: 5:14-cv JRA Doc #: 12 Filed: 10/24/14 1 of 7. PageID #: 162
Case: 5:14-cv-02331-JRA Doc #: 12 Filed: 10/24/14 1 of 7. PageID #: 162 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Ellora s Cave Publishing, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs,
More informationCase 5:16-cv RSWL-KK Document 11 Filed 04/19/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:95
Case :-cv-00-rswl-kk Document Filed 0// Page of Page ID #: Kathryn Clenney, SBN Barona Band of Mission Indians 0 Barona Road Lakeside, CA 00 Tel.: - FAX: -- kclenney@barona-nsn.gov Attorneys for specially-appearing
More informationMOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
Case 5:16-cv-01045-F Document 4 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JOHN DAUGOMAH, an adult Member ) of the Kiowa Indian Tribe, ) Case No.: 16-cv-1045-D
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:16-cv-00422-JRT-LIB Document 15 Filed 05/25/16 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Crystal Tiessen, v. Plaintiff, Chrysler Capital, Repossessors, Inc., PAR North America,
More informationCase 4:14-cv DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 10
Case 4:14-cv-00087-DLH-CSM Document 1 Filed 07/29/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA SOUTHWESTERN DIVISION EOG RESOURCES, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )
More informationv. NO. 29,799 APPEAL FROM THE WORKERS COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATION Gregory D. Griego, Workers Compensation Judge
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule 1-0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please
More informationNo STEVEN ROSENBERG, HUALAPAI INDIAN NATION, On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of The State Of Arizona
No. 09-742 STEVEN ROSENBERG, Petitioner, HUALAPAI INDIAN NATION, Respondent. On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of The State Of Arizona BRIEF IN OPPOSITION Counsel of Record THEODORE
More informationCase: 3:13-cv wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/19/13 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
Case: 3:13-cv-00121-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/19/13 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, ) INCORPORATED, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.
More informationCase: 4:11-cv AGF Doc. #: 10 Filed: 07/25/11 Page: 1 of 18 PageID #: 197
Case: 4:11-cv-01237-AGF Doc. #: 10 Filed: 07/25/11 Page: 1 of 18 PageID #: 197 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION STATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. CHRIS KOSTER, ) Attorney
More informationCase 1:16-cv DLH-CSM Document 4 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 12
Case 1:16-cv-00103-DLH-CSM Document 4 Filed 05/05/16 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA NORTHWESTERN DIVISION ENERPLUS RESOURCES (USA CORPORATION, a Delaware
More informationCase 0:17-cv BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2017 Page 1 of 6. Case No. 0:17-cv BB RICHARD WIGGINS,
Case 0:17-cv-60468-BB Document 42 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/05/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION ASKER B. ASKER, BASSAM ASKAR,
More informationCase 3:15-cv TSL-RHW Document 16 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 3:15-cv-00105-TSL-RHW Document 16 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION KENNY PAYNE, ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF BETTY SUE HAMRICK
More informationNo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT KEITH FINN. Appellant/Plaintiff GREAT PLAINS LENDING, LLC. Appellee/Defendant
Appellate Case: 16-6348 Document: 01019770991 Date Filed: 02/27/2017 Page: 1 No. 16-6348 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT KEITH FINN Appellant/Plaintiff v. GREAT PLAINS LENDING,
More informationCase 2:13-cv DB Document 2 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 10
Case 213-cv-01070-DB Document 2 Filed 12/03/13 Page 1 of 10 J. Preston Stieff (4764) J. Preston Stieff Law Offices 136 East South Temple, Suite 2400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone (801) 366-6002
More informationCase 1:13-cv RJS Document 24 Filed 09/06/13 Page 1 of 15 : : : :
Case 113-cv-05930-RJS Document 24 Filed 09/06/13 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- x THE OTOE-MISSOURIA
More informationCase 4:12-cv DLH-CSM Document 17 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 10
Case 4:12-cv-00058-DLH-CSM Document 17 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA NORTHWESTERN DIVISION Dish Network Service LLC, ) ) ORDER DENYING
More informationCase 2:17-cv JAR-JPO Document 94 Filed 11/27/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
Case 2:17-cv-02521-JAR-JPO Document 94 Filed 11/27/17 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 17-cv-2521-JAR-JPO
More informationCase 1:08-cv TLL-CEB Document 19 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION
Case 1:08-cv-11522-TLL-CEB Document 19 Filed 10/09/2009 Page 1 of 5 JENNIFER SOBER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case Number 08-11522-BC v. Honorable
More informationCASE 0:16-cv JRT-LIB Document 41 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:16-cv-00422-JRT-LIB Document 41 Filed 10/20/16 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Crystal Tiessen, v. Chrysler Capital, et al., Plaintiff, Court File No. 16-cv-422 (JRT/LIB)
More information