Statement Regarding Motions for Intervention — Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin
Summary
The Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs' Statement Regarding ANCS' Motions for Intervention, filed May 8, 2020 as Document 53 in the consolidated cases Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, et al. v. Steven Mnuchin, No. 1:20-cv-01002-APM, in the United States District Court, District of Columbia. Plaintiffs including Rosebud Sioux Tribe and Oglala Sioux Tribe state that, solely in the interest of expediency, they do not oppose permissive intervention on the motions filed by Ahtna, Inc. (Doc. 43), the Associations (Doc. 45) and the Calista Intervenors (Doc. 46). They state that the proposed ANC Intervenors are not entitled to intervention as a matter of right. They ask that, if the Court grants permissive intervention, it go only to the Association, with consolidated briefing.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Statement Regarding Motions for Intervention — Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation v. Mnuchin.”
Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/notice-other-confederated-tribes-of-the-chehalis-reservation-et-al-v-m-f44734994e/
, SHA-256 46f5dcd15e7c489cb5c1c39e20e487a5222dea76cef564aec37d6208ea4b4dba.Full text
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 53 Filed 05/08/20 Page 1 of 7
1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
4
5
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS
RESERVATION, et al.
6
Plaintiffs,
7 v. Case No.: 1:20-cv-01002-APM
8 STEVEN MNUCHIN, SECRETARY, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
9
Defendant.
10 _________________________________________
11 CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE, et al.
12 Plaintiffs,
v. Case No. 1:20-cv-01059-APM
13
STEVEN MNUCHIN, SECRETARY, UNITED
14
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
15
Defendant.
16 _________________________________________
17 UTE TRIBE OF THE UINTAH AND OURAY
RESERVATION
18
Plaintiff,
19 v. Case No. 1:20-cv-01070-APM
20 STEVEN MNUCHIN, SECRETARY, UNITED CONSOLIDATED CASES
STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
21
Defendant.
22
23
CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT REGARDING ANCS’
24 MOTIONS FOR INTERVENTION
25
Page 1 of 7
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 53 Filed 05/08/20 Page 2 of 7
1 Plaintiffs Cheyenne River Sioux, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Nondalton
2 Tribal Council, Arctic Village Council, and Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government
3 (collectively, “Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs”), respectfully submit this notice regarding the
4 motions to intervene filed by Ahtna, Inc., Doc. 43; Alaska Native Village Corporation
5 Association, Inc., and Association of ANCSA Regional Corporation Presidents/CEOs, Inc. (“the
6 Associations”), Doc. 45; and Calista Corporation, et al., Doc. 46 (the “Calista Intervenors”)
7 (collectively, “ANC Intervenors”).
8 Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs appreciate the opportunity provided by the Court to
9 address the motions to intervene in an expedited manner so as to avoid any unnecessary delay in
10 reaching a final decision on the merits in this action. Time is of the utmost importance here.
11 While the proposed ANC Intervenors have made numerous incorrect factual assertions and
12 erroneous legal arguments, Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs will deal with those directly in the
13 merits briefing. The fact is that even if this Court accepted all the statements made by proposed
14 Intervenor declarants, it would not change the issue or result in this case: ANCs are still not tribal
15 governments. Therefore, and solely in the interest of expediency, Cheyenne River Sioux
16 Plaintiffs do not oppose permissive intervention. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). The proposed ANC
17 Intervenors are not entitled to intervention as a matter of right as they have no legally protectable
18 interest in money Congress allocated for tribal governments. See id. 24(a)(2). Cheyenne River
19 Sioux Plaintiff’s agreement to permissive intervention cannot be construed as an agreement that
20 the ANCs are entitled to any share of CARES Act Title V funds allocated solely for the use of
21 tribal governments.
22 Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs respectfully request that if the Court grants permissive
23 intervention, it should only grant it to the Association, which already purports to represent all
24 ANCs, including Ahtna and the Calista Intervenors. Participation by Ahtna and the Calista
25 Intervenors would be purely duplicative. In any event, if more than just the Associations is
Page 2 of 7
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 53 Filed 05/08/20 Page 3 of 7
1 allowed permissive intervention, the ANC Intervenors should be required to consolidate their
2 briefing to avoid duplication. 1 Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs also request that the Court
3 proscribe that the ANC Intervenors cannot introduce any new claims or collateral issues into this
4 case, which accords with representations already made in the intervenor filings. See, e.g.,
5 Seminole Nation of Okla. v. Norton, 206 F.R.D. 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2001) (“[I]t is well settled in this
6 circuit that ‘[a]n intervening party may join issue only on a matter that has been brought before
7 the court by another party.’”) (quoting Ill. Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 911 F.2d 776, 786 (D.C. Cir.
8 1990)). In addition, ANC Intervenors should not be permitted discovery, which the parties have
9 already agreed is likely limited to the administrative record anyway. The Court’s discretion to
10 impose these reasonable conditions is well-established. See, e.g., Fund for Animals, Inc. v.
11 Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 737 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Cayuga Nation v. Zinke, 324 F.R.D. 277, 283-
12 84 (D.D.C. 2018); Forest Cty. Potawatomi Cmty. v. United States, 317 F.R.D. 6, 15-16 (D.D.C.
13 2016); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, Advisory Committee Notes (1966 Amendment) (“An
14 intervention of right under the amended rule may be subject to appropriate conditions or
15 restrictions responsive among other things to the requirements of efficient conduct of the
16 proceedings.”).
17
18
19
1
20 In this regard, Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs note the Associations’ position that they
represent the interests of all twelve regional ANCs and nearly 200 village ANCs, Doc. 45 at 3-4,
21 and that “neither the [Associations’] claims nor relief requested require the participation of the
individual ANCs.” Cheyenne River Sioux Plaintiffs are challenging the ANCs’ entitlement to
22
payments under the CARES Act on the theory that the ANCs are not “Tribal governments” or
“Indian Tribes” as such terms are used in Title V of the CARES Act. Cheyenne River Sioux
23
Plaintiffs’ claims do not disambiguate between individual ANCs under Cheyenne River Sioux
24
Plaintiffs’ theory; if one loses funding, all lose funding. As the Associations rightly observe,
“the participation of each individual ANC is not required.” Id. at 17-18; see also generally Fund
25 For Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 737 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (considering whether proposed
intervenors are adequately represented by other intervenors).
Page 3 of 7
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 53 Filed 05/08/20 Page 4 of 7
1 Finally, the taking of an interlocutory appeal by any proposed intervenor upon the grant
2 of intervention would appear highly inconsistent with the ANC Intervenors’ expressed desire to
3 move the proceedings in this Court to conclusion on an expedited basis.
4 DATED this 8th day of May, 2020.
5 /s/ Nicole E. Ducheneaux
/s/ Rose Weckenmann
6 Nicole E. Ducheneaux (D.C. Bar No. NE001)
Rose Weckenmann (pro hac vice)
7 BIG FIRE LAW & POLICY GROUP LLP
1404 South Fort Crook Road
8
Bellevue, NE 68005
9
Telephone: (531) 466-8725
Facsimile: (531) 466-8792
10 Email: nducheneaux@bigfirelaw.com
11 Counsel for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
12 /s/ Natalie A. Landreth
/s/ Erin C. Dougherty Lynch
13 /s/ Matthew N. Newman
/s/ Wesley James Furlong
14 /s/ Megan R. Condon
Natalie A. Landreth (D.D.C. Bar No. AK0001)
15 Erin C. Dougherty Lynch (pro hac vice)
Matthew N. Newman (pro hac vice)
16 Wesley James Furlong (D.D.C. Bar No. AK0003)
Megan R Condon (pro hac vice)
17
NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUND
745 West 4th Avenue, Suite 502
18
Anchorage, AK 99501
19 Telephone: (907) 276-2466
Facsimile: (907) 276-2466
20 Email: landreth@narf.org
dougherty@narf.org
21 mnewman@narf.org
wfurlong@narf.org
22 mcondon@narf.org
23 Counsel for Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Nondalton Tribal
Council, Arctic Village Council, Native Village of
24 Venetie Tribal Government
25 /s/ Jennifer Bear Eagle
Page 4 of 7
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 53 Filed 05/08/20 Page 5 of 7
1 Jennifer Bear Eagle (pro hac vice)
OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE LEGAL DEPARTMENT
2 P.O. Box 1204
Pine Ridge, SD 57770
3 Telephone: (605) 867-2138
Facsimile: (605) 867-2140
4
Email: JenniferBE@ostlegal.org
5
Counsel for Oglala Sioux Tribe
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 5 of 7
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 53 Filed 05/08/20 Page 6 of 7
1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2 I hereby certify that on May 8, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
3 the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of this filing to the
4
attorneys of record and all registered participants.
5
6
/s/ Nicole Ducheneaux
7 Nicole E. Ducheneaux (DC Bar No. NE001)
Big Fire Law & Policy Group LLP
8 1404 South Fort Crook Road
Bellevue, NE 68005
9 Telephone: (531) 466-8725
Facsimile: (531) 466-8792
10 Email: nducheneaux@bigfirelaw.com
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 6 of 7
Case 1:20-cv-01002-APM Document 53 Filed 05/08/20 Page 7 of 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 7 of 7
File and source
- File
- 53-notice-other.pdf
- Size
- 175,300 bytes
- SHA-256
- 46f5dcd15e7c489cb5c1c39e20e487a5222dea76cef564aec37d6208ea4b4dba
- Our copy
- 53-notice-other.pdf
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com