gaming

Federal Court Dismisses Effort to Enforce Billion-Dollar Judgment Against Harrah’s

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

But not on Indian law grounds — because the case was settled orally in 2003.

Vacco v Harrah’s DCT Order

An excerpt:

A balancing of the Winston factors tips decidedly in favor of the conclusion that a binding oral settlement agreement was reached on March 31, 2003 ending the litigation in this Court over the Tribal Court Judgment. “[T]o protect the parties appearing before it, to preserve the integrity of an action, to maintain its ability to render a final judgment and to ensure the administration of justice,” Haitian Ctrs., 817 F. Supp. at 337, the Court finds that the prior actions were finally dismissed by virtue of the oral settlement agreement entered on March 31, 2003. See Mone, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19445, 2001 WL 1518263, at *1 (finding that the action had been settled even though the formal stipulation was never submitted where defense counsel wrote the court confirming a conversation with the judge’s law clerk that the matter had been settled and stating that a formal stipulation would be drafted and forwarded to the court within three weeks); Van Ness, 129 A.D.2d at 932, 514 N.Y.S.2d at 571 (finding that an out-of-court oral agreement to settle as case was binding even though defendant never executed the general release and stipulation discontinuing the action forwarded by defendant counsel). Accordingly, because the subject matter of this action has been asserted in a prior action and settled by an oral agreement to end that matter with prejudice, Defendants’ motion must be granted and this action dismissed. The Court need not, and does not, reach the alternative arguments for dismissal.

Cal. Appeals Court Holds Contract Dispute between Tribe and Management Companies Not Yet Appealable

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here s the unpublished opinion in Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (Cal. App., 4th Dist.).

An excerpt:

This case arises from unsuccessful negotiations between the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians (Pauma) and Caesars Entertainment, Inc. (Caesars), for Caesars’s development and operation of an expanded casino on Pauma’s reservation, and the merger during the negotiations of Caesars and Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc. (Harrah’s), which operates a nearby casino for the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (Rincon). 1 In Harrah’s appeal, the issue is whether a $ 30 million judgment against it on the cause of action in Pauma’s complaint for intentional interference with prospective economic relations must be reversed because the jury’s special verdict is fatally inconsistent. We answer the question in the affirmative. The complaint’s causes of action for a violation of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq.), and for tortious interference were both predicated solely on the same alleged wrong, an agreement between Harrah’s and Caesars to restrain trade by allocating or dividing customers or territories. The jury found in Harrah’s favor on the Cartwright Act claim, but in Pauma’s favor on the tortious interference claim. Because the inconsistency cannot be reconciled, we reverse the judgment insofar as it concerns these two causes of action against Harrah’s, and direct the court to enter an order granting Harrah’s motion for a new trial.

Federal Court Rejects Non-Indian Group’s Attempt to Take Advantage of IGRA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Department of Texas Veterans v. Dorning (N.D. Ala.) — Dept of Texas Veterans v Dorning

The plaintiffs argued that they were “Class II” bingo under IGRA:

Plaintiff’s final argument is that it is entitled to summary judgment on the legality of its bingo games because the gaming system at issue is a “Class II” game under the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act.138 See 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. However, that Act applies only to the conduct of gambling operations on Indian reservations, see 25 U.S.C. § 2710, and it is undisputed that the Triana operation at issue is not located on Indian lands.139 Consequently, plaintiff’s argument does not merit further discussion.

Law.Com on Dram Shop Action against Mohegan Sun

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Despite what this article states, this case is far from “novel” — there are numerous opinions all holding that tribes retain immunity, except a lone outlier — Oklahoma — which can be (perhaps) distinguished on the basis that that state’s gaming compacts purportedly waive immunity.

Another thing not emphasized by this opinion — the plaintiff has remedies in tribal court (!).

From Law.com:

In what could become a first-in-the-nation test, a young Waterford, Conn., woman injured by a drunk driver is challenging the sovereignty of Connecticut’s Mohegan American Indian tribe. She is arguing the tribe should be liable in state courts if it lets patrons get so dangerously drunk that they then injure or kill other people.

Currently, the Mohegan and Mashantucket Pequot tribes are immune from being sued in state court for ordinary negligence matters, including so-called “dram shop act” violations. Those violations can cost a bar up to $250,000 if patrons are permitted to get too intoxicated and harm others.

Special tribal courts handle basic civil matters arising on lands controlled by the Mohegan and the Mashantucket Pequot tribes, both of which operate large casinos in southeastern Connecticut. The tribes claim immunity from negligence suits in state courts as a feature of their status as federally recognized sovereign Indian nations. Continue reading →

Federal Court Dismisses Pro Se Claim for Tribal Per Cap

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion ins Springer v. Griffin (D. Neb.), a claim against the Omaha Tribe — Springer v Griffin

An excerpt:

Liberally construed, Plaintiff brings his claims pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulation Act (“IGRA”). 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721. The IRGA provides Indian tribes with the authority to distribute gaming proceeds to tribal members, per capita, if such distribution is in compliance with an approved allocation plan. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(3). It is unclear from Plaintiff’s Complaint if the Omaha Tribe has such an approved plan. However, even if it does, whether Plaintiff is entitled to the tribe’s casino proceeds turns on a determination of whether Plaintiff is a tribal member.

If Plaintiff is not a tribal member, the court lacks jurisdiction to over his claims. As discussed above, a tribe has the exclusive authority to determine its membership. There is no greater intrusion upon tribal sovereignty than for a federal court to interfere with this determination. See Smith, 100 F.3d at 559. Continue reading →

NY Gov. Paterson Endorses Shinnecock Recognition Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From the NYTs:

ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has endorsed an Indian tribe’s bid for federal recognition, an important step for a tribe that wants to build the first casino in New York City or its suburbs.

Mr. Paterson is the first governor to make such a public embrace of the marathon effort by the Shinnecock Indian Nation to gain recognition. In a Sept. 22 letter to Ken Salazar, the secretary of the interior, the governor wrote, “to say federal recognition of the Shinnecock is long overdue would be an understatement” and called for the Obama administration to recognize the tribe, which is based in Southampton, N.Y.

Tribal leaders hailed his move as a key victory, because the federal government is in the final stages of considering the tribe’s application and might have been deterred without support from the governor.

“There have been a lot of things said about Governor Paterson in the media,” said Randy King, the chairman of the tribe. “Politics is a rough business. To us, he’s a man of principle.”

Continue reading →

State’s Brief in Challenge to Michigan Gaming Control Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the State of Michigan’s Sixth Circuit brief in Northville Downs v. Governor — State of Michigan Appellee Brief

The appellant’s brief is here, as are lower court materials.

Gun Lake Band Groundbreaking Ceremony

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

🙂

Huron Nottawaseppi Negotiates for Lower Revenue Sharing Rate with State

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Indianz:


The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians Indians signed an amended Class III gaming compact with Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D).

The new agreement lowers the tribe’s revenue-sharing rate. In 2009 and 2010, the tribe will share 4 percent of slot machine profits from the FireKeepers Casino with the state, down from 8 percent in the original compact.

In 2011, the tribe will share 4 percent of slot profits under $100 million and 6 percent of slot profits over $100 million. Starting in 2012, the rate will based on a sliding scale, with payments not to exceed 8 percent of slot profits.

Despite the lower rate, the tribe will continue to share 2 percent with local communities. The amended compact restructures the Local Revenue Sharing Board, expanding it from three to six members.

“The amended compact will help create new jobs, new economic opportunities and new revenues for the tribe, local community and the state,” Chairwoman Laura Spurr said in a press release.

The tribe and the state already submitted the amended compact to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. They said the agreement was approved and will become effective once a notice is published in the Federal Register.

The changes bring the Nottawaseppi Huron agreement in line with other tribal-state gaming compacts.

Continue reading →

Union Organizing at Soaring Eagle?

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From Indianz:

Two employees of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan want to organize a union at the Soaring Eagle Casino and Resort.

Peter Gallinat and Dawaine Penney recently contacted the United Auto Workers. The employees don’t have any complaints but they want to be able to negotiate with Saginaw Chippewa management.

“We just want a voice and a say in the contract. And to be treated with dignity and respect,” Penney, a table games dealer, told The Mt. Pleasant Morning Sun.

Two prior union efforts at Soaring Eagle failed. The UAW is organizing among card dealers at the casino owned by the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation of Connecticut.

Get the Story:

Two Soaring Eagle workers contact UAW (The Mt. Pleasant Morning Sun 9/12)