Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Maverick Gaming LLC, a casino gaming company, filed a lawsuit challenging the State of Washington's tribal-state compacts that allow sports betting on tribal land. Maverick argued that these compacts violate the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act (IGRA), the Equal Protection Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. Maverick sought to invalidate the gaming compacts and amendments that permit sports betting on tribal lands, which would allow them to offer similar gaming activities at their cardrooms.The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed Maverick's lawsuit. The court found that the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, which intervened for the limited purpose of filing a motion to dismiss, was a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a). The court determined that the Tribe had a legally protected interest in the lawsuit that could be impaired or impeded in its absence. The court also concluded that the Tribe could not be feasibly joined in the litigation due to its sovereign immunity. Consequently, the court ruled that the litigation could not proceed in equity and good conscience without the Tribe and dismissed the case.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal. The Ninth Circuit agreed that the Tribe was a required party with a substantial interest in the legality of its gaming compact and sports betting amendment. The court also found that the federal government could not adequately represent the Tribe's interests, as their interests diverged in meaningful ways. The court held that the Tribe's sovereign immunity prevented its joinder, and the litigation could not proceed without the Tribe. The court rejected Maverick's argument that the public rights exception should apply, as the suit threatened the Tribe's legal entitlements and sovereignty. View "Maverick Gaming LLC V. United States" on Justia Law

The Department of Social Services (DSS) filed an abuse and neglect petition concerning two minor children, N.K., Jr. and S.K., who are Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The children were taken into emergency temporary custody after their father, N.K., Sr., was arrested for driving under the influence with the children in the car. The children were found to be homeless and in poor condition. The State filed a petition alleging abuse and neglect, and the father admitted to the allegations. Despite DSS providing various services, including substance abuse treatment and visitation arrangements, the father continued to struggle with substance abuse and was repeatedly incarcerated. The mother was largely absent and uncooperative.The Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Gregory County, South Dakota, handled the initial proceedings. The father was served with the petition at an advisory hearing, but no summons was issued or served. The case was transferred between counties due to the father's relocation. The father admitted to the allegations, and DSS provided ongoing services. Despite some progress, the father relapsed and was arrested again, leading to a failed trial reunification. The State filed a petition for termination of parental rights, and the court held a final dispositional hearing.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the failure to issue or serve a summons did not deprive the court of jurisdiction because the father had actual notice of the proceedings. The court also found that termination of parental rights was the least restrictive alternative, given the father's ongoing substance abuse issues and inability to provide a stable environment. Additionally, the court determined that DSS had made active efforts to reunite the family, but these efforts were unsuccessful. The court affirmed the termination of both parents' parental rights. View "Interest Of N.K." on Justia Law

A mother sought to regain custody of her children, who had been living with their uncle and aunt in Canada for two years. The uncle and aunt opposed the return, arguing it was in the children's best interests to stay with them. Concurrent custody proceedings took place in Alaska and Canada, with Alaska ultimately asserting jurisdiction. After a custody trial, the uncle and aunt were awarded physical and legal custody of the children. The mother appealed, claiming the court made several legal and factual errors.The Alaska Superior Court found that it had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and consolidated the cases. During the trial, the court heard testimony from multiple witnesses, including the mother, the uncle, the aunt, and experts. The court found that the children were thriving in Canada and that returning them to their mother would be detrimental due to her erratic behavior and substance use. The court also conducted in camera interviews with the children, who expressed a preference to stay with their uncle and aunt.The Alaska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court's decision. The court held that the Superior Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding custody to the uncle and aunt, finding that the children's welfare required it. The court also found that the Superior Court correctly applied the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requirements, determining that the placement constituted a "foster care placement" and that active efforts had been made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. The court concluded that the expert witnesses were properly qualified and that the evidence supported the finding that returning the children to their mother would likely cause serious emotional damage. The custody and visitation orders were upheld as not being an abuse of discretion. View "O'Brien v. Delaplain" on Justia Law

Evan D., an Indian child, was born with significant health complications. Shortly after his birth, the Office of Children’s Services (OCS) filed an emergency petition to adjudicate him a child in need of aid due to his parents' history of neglect, substance abuse, and domestic violence. Evan was placed with foster parents Rosalind and Max M., who lived near a medical facility capable of addressing his health needs. The Native Village of Togiak, Evan’s tribe, was informed of the proceedings and later petitioned to transfer jurisdiction over Evan’s case to the tribal court.The Superior Court of Alaska, Third Judicial District, adjudicated Evan a child in need of aid and granted temporary custody to OCS. OCS petitioned to terminate the parental rights of Evan’s parents, and the Tribe petitioned to transfer jurisdiction. Rosalind and Max moved to intervene, arguing that the Tribe might place Evan with his grandmother, who they believed could not meet his health needs. The Superior Court denied their motion, stating that federal law prohibits considering potential placement changes when deciding whether to transfer jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. The court held that the foster parents' arguments against transferring jurisdiction were contrary to federal law, which prohibits considering whether transfer could affect the child's placement. The court affirmed the Superior Court's decision, stating that the foster parents did not present valid grounds to deny the transfer of jurisdiction and therefore did not share any issue of law or fact in common with the underlying proceedings that would justify their intervention. The court also addressed the procedure for staying transfer orders pending appeal, emphasizing the need to balance competing interests. View "Rosalind M. v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves a mother, Heather, who moved with her three children from Minnesota to Washington to escape domestic violence. After their arrival, the family experienced intermittent homelessness, and the children faced developmental and mental health challenges. Heather also struggled with mental health and substance abuse issues. The children's school reported potential physical abuse to the Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF), leading to the children being placed in emergency shelter care.The King County Superior Court ordered the children into emergency shelter care, and the Court of Appeals denied review. Heather sought review of the shelter care order in the Washington Supreme Court. Department II of the Supreme Court reversed the shelter care order due to the State's failure to apply the "active efforts" standard required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and the Washington State Indian Child Welfare Act (WICWA). The case was remanded for further fact-finding. On remand, the trial court kept the children in shelter care, finding that returning them to Heather would place them in substantial and immediate danger.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed whether RCW 13.04.033(3) requires a lawyer to obtain "specific direction" from a client before seeking appellate review in child welfare cases. The court held that the statute does require such specific direction but does not mandate a separate sworn document or client signature. A notice of appeal or discretionary review filed under RAP 5.3 satisfies the requirement. The court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, which had dismissed the review due to the lack of a sworn, signed statement from Heather. However, as the case was moot, the Supreme Court remanded it to the trial court for any further necessary proceedings. View "In re Dependency of A.H." on Justia Law

Leslie Torgerson, a non-Indian, and Terri Torgerson, an enrolled member of the Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Tribe (SWO), were married in South Dakota. Terri filed for divorce in the SWO tribal court, while Leslie filed for divorce in Roberts County. Leslie moved to dismiss the tribal court proceedings, arguing lack of jurisdiction and improper service, but the tribal court denied his motion. Subsequently, Terri moved to dismiss Leslie’s state court proceedings, and the circuit court granted her motion, recognizing the tribal court’s order under the principle of full faith and credit. Leslie appealed this decision.The circuit court concluded that it shared concurrent subject matter jurisdiction with the tribal court over the divorce but deferred to the tribal court’s order, which it believed had obtained valid personal jurisdiction first. The court also found that the tribal court’s order was entitled to full faith and credit, despite Leslie’s arguments to the contrary.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the circuit court erred in extending full faith and credit to the tribal court’s order. Instead, the court should have applied the principles of comity under SDCL 1-1-25, which requires clear and convincing evidence that the tribal court had proper jurisdiction and that the order was obtained through a fair process. The Supreme Court found that the tribal court lacked both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over Leslie, a non-Indian, and that the tribal court’s order did not meet the requirements for comity. Consequently, the tribal court’s order was not enforceable, and the circuit court’s dismissal of Leslie’s divorce action was reversed. View "Torgerson v. Torgerson" on Justia Law

The case involves the removal of a newborn child, N., from her mother, C.J., due to the mother's substance abuse and mental health issues. The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) placed N. with a foster caregiver, who was a trial attorney for the County Counsel’s office. Maternal aunt (aunt) requested placement of N. shortly after her birth, but DCFS failed to assess her for over a year despite repeated requests from mother’s counsel, N.’s counsel, and aunt herself. During this period, visitation between N. and her family was severely limited, with the caregiver dictating the visitation schedule.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County repeatedly ordered DCFS to assess aunt for placement, but DCFS did not comply. Eventually, aunt’s home was approved for placement, but DCFS still did not move N. to aunt’s care, deferring to the caregiver’s objections. By the time the court considered aunt for placement, over a year had passed, and the court found it was too late to apply the relative placement preference. The court also found that it was not in N.’s best interest to move her due to her bond with the caregiver.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court found that DCFS’s delays in evaluating aunt for placement and the court’s lackluster response to the family’s pleas for supportive services were prejudicial. The court concluded that the juvenile court erred by failing to apply the relative placement preference under section 361.3 and that the error was prejudicial. The appellate court reversed the order terminating mother’s reunification services, the order denying mother’s section 361.3 motion, and the order terminating her parental rights, and remanded for further proceedings. The court also directed DCFS and the juvenile court to ensure compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) requirements. View "In re N.J." on Justia Law

Craig Wood was indicted on charges of assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily injury in Indian country. The government needed to prove Wood's Indian status to secure a conviction. To do so, they introduced a "Certificate of Indian Blood" from the Seneca-Cayuga Nation, authenticated by a "Certificate of Authenticity." Wood objected, arguing he was not given reasonable pre-trial notice of the Authenticity Certificate, as required by Rule 902(11), and thus had no fair opportunity to challenge it.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma overruled Wood's objection, admitting the Indian Blood Certificate into evidence. The court did not address the notice requirement under Rule 902(11) and based its decision solely on the fact that the same individual signed both certificates. Wood was subsequently convicted on both charges by a jury.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court's decision to admit the Indian Blood Certificate without proper notice was manifestly unreasonable. The Tenth Circuit emphasized that Rule 902(11) requires reasonable pre-trial written notice to allow the opposing party a fair opportunity to challenge the evidence. The court concluded that the district court's failure to consider the notice requirement was an abuse of discretion.The Tenth Circuit also determined that the error was not harmless. The improperly admitted Indian Blood Certificate was the only direct evidence of Wood's Indian status, which was crucial for the jurisdictional requirement. The court noted that the government's argument that M.M.'s testimony about Wood's Indian status was sufficient was unconvincing and did not meet the required standard for harmless error.As a result, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court's judgment, vacated Wood's convictions, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "United States v. Wood" on Justia Law

The case involves Leatrice Tanner-Brown, a descendant of people enslaved by the Cherokee Tribe and emancipated at the end of the Civil War. Her grandfather, George Curls, received land allotments as a minor. Tanner-Brown and the Harvest Institute Freedman Federation, LLC (HIFF) brought suit seeking various remedies related to the allotments, including an accounting from the Secretary of the Interior arising from the alleged creation of a trust relationship between the federal government and Indian beneficiaries.The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, finding that Tanner-Brown failed to establish that she was injured by not receiving an accounting on the ground that there was no trust relationship between Curls and the federal government and that HIFF failed to satisfy the requirements for associational standing.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that although HIFF cannot sustain standing, Tanner-Brown has alleged a concrete injury-in-fact sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court also found that the case raises factual questions that cannot be resolved at this juncture and remanded for the district court to consider the merits of Tanner-Brown’s allegations and the relevant record documents in the first instance. View "Tanner-Brown v. Haaland" on Justia Law

The Chemehuevi Indian Tribe filed a complaint against the United States, alleging mismanagement of funds and breach of trust. The Tribe sought an accounting and damages for the alleged mismanagement of the Parker Dam compensation funds, the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) Judgment funds, and the suspense accounts. The Tribe also claimed that the U.S. government's failure to approve a proposed lease of its water rights constituted a Fifth Amendment taking and a breach of trust.The United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed the Tribe's complaint, ruling that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The court found that the Tribe was essentially seeking an accounting to discover potential claims against the government, rather than asserting a right to be paid a certain sum. The court also dismissed the Tribe's claims related to the proposed water rights lease, stating that the claim was outside the six-year statute of limitations.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the lower court's dismissal of the Tribe's complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court agreed that the Tribe was seeking an accounting to discover potential claims, rather than asserting a right to be paid a certain sum. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Tribe's claim related to the proposed water rights lease, agreeing that it was outside the statute of limitations. However, the appellate court vacated the lower court's dismissal of the Tribe's claim for failure to state a takings claim, stating that the Tribe's decision to lease the water off-reservation could fulfill the purpose of the reservation. View "CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE v. US " on Justia Law