So far, this case hasn’t proceeded very far, but the question of whether the court will use by analogy the good faith negotiation requirement under the National Labor Relations Act in this Indian Gaming Regulatory Act case has been decided:
In interpreting this good faith standard, courts have taken some guidance from cases interpreting negotiation obligations imposed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Indian Gaming Related Cases v. California, (Coyote Valley I) 147 F.Supp.2d 1011, 1020-21 (N.D.Cal.2001), affirmed by Coyote Valley II, 331 F.3d 1094. However, the NLRA and IGRA differ in some important aspects. For example, claims of bad faith negotiation under the NLRA are first reviewed by an administrative agency (the National Labor Review Board), see Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. v. Tomco Communications, Inc., 567 F.2d 871, 876 (9th Cir.1978). Under the IGRA, the initial determination is made by the court. Thus, while the NLRA caselaw provides some useful guidance, courts have not applied it to the IGRA “wholesale.” Coyote Valley I, 147 F.Supp.2d at 1021.
Here is the order — DCT Order on Motion to Compel (and the magistrate’s order before that — Magistrate Order on Motion to Compel).
Fort Independence has a motion for summary judgment pending (Fort Independence Motion for Summary Judgment). California’s response is due next week. Still waiting on an 11th Amendment motion. Maybe I missed something….
Turtle Talk 