Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a dispute over a lending scheme leveraging tribal sovereign immunity to shield non-tribal entities from liability. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, including Mark Curry and entities associated with the Otoe-Missouria Tribe, engaged in unlawful debt collection practices violating RICO, the EFTA, and TILA with unjust enrichment claims. The court conducted extensive jurisdictional discovery and denied motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to compel arbitration. It found that the lending entity, AWL II, did not qualify as an arm of the tribe because control and significant benefits accrued to non-tribal entities, particularly Curry. The court determined that the arbitration agreements were unenforceable, as they sought to apply tribal law exclusively, disregarding federal and state laws. Motions to transfer the venue were denied, affirming Virginia's connection due to the lending activities. The case is consolidated under docket number 4:17-cv-145, with responses to the motion for class certification due in fifteen days.
Legal Issues Addressed
Arbitration Agreement Enforcementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the arbitration agreement in the loan contracts was unenforceable due to its attempt to apply tribal law exclusively, disregarding federal and state law, thus violating public policy.
Reasoning: The Court determines that the facts in this case closely mirror those in Hayes and Dillon, leading to the conclusion that the arbitration agreement is unenforceable.
Sovereign Immunity and Economic Activitiessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court evaluated the applicability of sovereign immunity in the context of a tribal lending scheme, ultimately determining that the lending entity, AWL II, did not qualify as an arm of the tribe due to the significant control and benefits accruing to non-tribal entities.
Reasoning: The court found the arguments persuasive, highlighting that the Tribe's revenue share is drastically lower than Curry's, leading to the conclusion that this factor weighs heavily against granting sovereign immunity.
Subject Matter Jurisdictionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, noting that tribal sovereign immunity can be challenged if it is used improperly to shield non-tribal entities from liability.
Reasoning: The Court has the authority to consider evidence regarding disputed jurisdictional facts without changing a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
Venue and Transfer of Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court denied motions to transfer the case to another venue, emphasizing the significant connection to Virginia due to the lending activities conducted in the state.
Reasoning: The Court determined that the interests of justice favor Virginia, noting its familiarity with the case's facts and the alleged scheme.