Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Big Man

D. Montana

Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Big Man

DecidedJanuary 3, 2020

Docket1:17-cv-00065

StatusUnknown

This text of Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Big Man (Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Big Man) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Big Man, (D. Mont. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

FILE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JANO 3 2029 FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA Clerk, U S District Cou istrict Of Montana BILLINGS DIVISION Billings

BIG HORN COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., CV 17-65-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING vs. MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ALDEN BIG MAN, e¢ al, Defendants.

The United States Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations on December 13, 2019. (Doc. 97.) The Magistrate recommended the Court deny the Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 97 at 12.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), parties are required to file written objections within 14 days of the filing of the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation. No objections were filed. When neither party objects, this Court reviews the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000).

After reviewing the Findings and Recommendation, this Court does not find that the Magistrate committed clear error. The Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of federal law and has clearly identified it is seeking prospective relief to satisfy the “straightforward inquiry” from Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Tribal sovereign immunity does not bar the Plaintiffs claim. The Plaintiffs complaint does not fail to state a claim, either. The Plaintiff has shown the “requisite enforcement connection” to Title 20 of the Crow Law and Order Code for the Ex Parte Young exception to tribal sovereign immunity to apply. See Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vaughn, 509 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2007). IT IS ORDERED that the proposed Findings and Recommendations entered by the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 97) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 78) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall notify the parties of this order. This case shall remain referred to Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan for further proceedings. DATED this Zz Shay of January, 2020.

Daca Wa Lew SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

FILE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JANO 3 2029 FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA Clerk, U S District Cou istrict Of Montana BILLINGS DIVISION Billings

BIG HORN COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., CV 17-65-BLG-SPW Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING vs. MAGISTRATE’S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ALDEN BIG MAN, e¢ al, Defendants.

The United States Magistrate Judge filed Findings and Recommendations on December 13, 2019. (Doc. 97.) The Magistrate recommended the Court deny the Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. 97 at 12.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), parties are required to file written objections within 14 days of the filing of the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation. No objections were filed. When neither party objects, this Court reviews the Magistrate’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists if the Court is left with a “definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000).

After reviewing the Findings and Recommendation, this Court does not find that the Magistrate committed clear error. The Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a violation of federal law and has clearly identified it is seeking prospective relief to satisfy the “straightforward inquiry” from Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908). Tribal sovereign immunity does not bar the Plaintiffs claim. The Plaintiffs complaint does not fail to state a claim, either. The Plaintiff has shown the “requisite enforcement connection” to Title 20 of the Crow Law and Order Code for the Ex Parte Young exception to tribal sovereign immunity to apply. See Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vaughn, 509 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2007). IT IS ORDERED that the proposed Findings and Recommendations entered by the United States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 97) are ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 78) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall notify the parties of this order. This case shall remain referred to Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan for further proceedings. DATED this Zz Shay of January, 2020.

Daca Wa Lew SUSAN P. WATTERS United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Big Horn County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Big Man, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/big-horn-county-electric-cooperative-inc-v-big-man-mtd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack