Here is the opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California — DCT Order Denying Cal Motion to Dismiss
The materials:
California Motion for Judgment on Pleadings
Big Lagoon Rancheria Opposition Brief
An excerpt:
gaming
Oklahoma Supreme Court Allows Tort Claims in State Courts against Tribal Casinos
Expanding its decision in Cossey v. Cherokee Nation, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that state courts have jurisdiction over tort claims against tribal casinos in the companion cases Griffith v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola and Dye v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola. An excerpt from Griffith:
We recently handed down our opinion in Cossey v. Cherokee Nation Enterprises, LLC, 2009 OK 6, — P.3d —-, (mandate issued June 11, 2009), holding that the state district court is a court of competent jurisdiction as that phrase is used in the Cherokee Nation’s tribal gaming compact. Today, in separate opinions in this case and in the related case of Dye v. Choctaw Casino of Pocola, Oklahoma,2009 OK 52, we determine that Oklahoma district courts are courts of competent jurisdiction as that phrase is used in Oklahoma’s statutory model tribal gaming compact and therefore the state courts may exercise jurisdiction over the tort claims against the Choctaw Nation and its casino in Pocola, Oklahoma.
Burt Lake Legislative Backers View Casino as a Long Shot
From the radio (?!?!), via Pechanga:
State Rep. Matt Lori reports that – after looking into the possibility of changing state gaming laws to allow the Burt Lake Band to establish an Indian casino in Sturgis – believes the chances are slim.
The Burt Lake Band has tried and failed to receive federal recognition as a tribe four times. Without federal recognition, they are unable to establish a casino under state gaming laws.
At the request of local developers hoping to bring a casino and the jobs that come with it to the area, Lori agreed to investigate whether it is possible for the tribe to gain official recognition from the state, and modify current Michigan gaming laws to allow the project to move forward. However, after consulting with legislative legal advisors and leaders in both the House and Senate, Lori said he did not believe it is a feasible option.
“I recognized the potential economic impact in terms of jobs and increased tourism a casino would bring to the area which is why I was willing to look into this issue, but it doesn’t seem possible at the current time,” said Lori, of Constantine. “The legal hurdles combined with the dynamic in the Legislature are too much to overcome.”
Senator Cameron Brown previously said he believed it would not be possible to gain recognition from the state and modify gaming laws, and Lori’s investigation confirms that position.
“From my point of view it would be fruitless to continue pursuing legislation that has very little hope of succeeding at this time. Rather than give people false hope, I think we need to move on to find another solution,” Lori said.
Lori said he is willing to meet with developers and city officials on how to best proceed.
N.M. Court of Appeals Dismisses Tort & Privacy Claims against Tribe
Here is the New Mexico Court of Appeals opinion in Holguin v. Tsay Corp. An excerpt:
We can see no basis on which the district court could have appropriately denied Tsay’s motion to dismiss as to the two counts of invasion of privacy. Holguin has presented no argument or authority that overcomes the controlling law requiring physical injury or damage. We are unpersuaded by Holguin’s argument that use of his name and likeness is no different than if he were robbed of his jewelry and money at gunpoint. We leave that hypothetical, which, unlike the present case, involves threat, risk, and potential of physical harm, for another day. Presently, we are dealing solely with an alleged emotional injury resulting from an alleged inchoate, incorporeal invasion of his privacy. We cannot characterize Holguin’s claim as one for damages for physical injury to himself or physical damage to property, and thus cannot characterize the claim as one for bodily injury or property damage.
API v. Sac and Fox — Court Finds Tribal Court Jurisdiction over Nonmembers
Here is the district court order granting the tribe’s motion to dismiss a challenge to the tribal court’s jurisdiction in this long-running intratribal dispute — DCT Order on Cross Motions
The pleadings are here.
An excerpt:
API’s conduct imperiled the Tribe’s political integrity. In essence, API invaded the Tribe’s land to quell an intra-tribal governmental dispute. API argues this intra-tribal dispute was merely incidental to the raid. API contends that, if the court finds the raid imperiled the Tribe’s political integrity, any action taken by a non-member on tribal land during an intra-tribal governmental dispute would justify a court’s invocation of the second Montana exception. The court disagrees. API’s actions were made and intended to be a direct challenge to the Bear Council. API raided the Casino on behalf of the Walker Council, which was not the Tribe’s true governing authority. API conducted the raid pursuant to the Agreement, and the Agreement’s terms indicate the services API was expected to provide related directly to the Tribe’s governmental affairs. See Agreement at P I.2.A (stating API “shall perform services directly relating to the investigation of a takeover by dissidents at the [Casino] located on the Tribe’s reservation lands” and “[i]nvestigat[e] [. . .] individuals involved in the unlawful acts against the Tribal Government”). In other words, API was hired to assist in the resolution of an intra-tribal governmental dispute, which strikes at the heart of the secondMontana exception. The fact API believed it was operating with the consent of the Tribe’s governing authority, that is, the ousted Walker Council, has no effect on the application of this exception. In truth and in fact, API raided the Casino specifically to weaken one side of an intra-tribal governmental dispute, which happened to be the Bear Council, the Tribe’s true governing body. This is an act with potentially catastrophic consequences to the Tribe’s government. The court concludes this merits the application of the protective prong of the Montana exception and that the Tribal Court’s exercise of civil jurisdiction over API was proper.
Oregon Supreme Court Allows Suit re: State Governor’s Authority to Enter into Gaming Compact
Here is the opinion in State ex rel. Newberry v. Kulongoski. An excerpt:
Relators filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in Lane County Circuit Court in 2003, challenging the Governor’s authority to enter into a gaming compact with the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Suislaw Indians (the Tribes). Under the compact, the Tribes would be permitted to open a casino near Florence, Oregon. On the state’s motion, the trial court dismissed relators’ petition on two grounds: (1) relators had failed to show that they had no adequate remedy at law; and (2) relators had failed to join the Tribes in the action, in violation of ORCP 29 A. Relators appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. We allowed the state’s petition for review, and we now affirm the Court of Appeals decision.
Seneca Allowed to File Amicus in Challenge to Seneca Gaming Laws
Here is the district court order in Warren v. United States (W.D. N.Y.) — DCT Order re Seneca Amicus Motion
Legal Analysis of Restructuring Tribal Gaming Enterprise Debts
From Gaming Industry Media (via Indianz):
The issue of casino bankruptcies in Indian country is tricky – and evolving. We turned to former National Indian Gaming Commissioner Tom Foley to analyze the situation. Foley, who works closely with Spectrum Gaming Group (publisher of this newsletter) and is a founding member of the PACE/Minnesota government relations firm, wrote this analysis with PACE partner Kevin Quigley and Bill Fisher of the Gray Plant Mooty law firm.
Over the last two decades Indian gaming has grown from a handful of modest-sized bingo facilities in a few states into a $26 billion industry with over 425 tribal gaming establishments operated by 230 tribes in 28 states, many such operations being large-scale casino destination resorts offering Class III gaming. Tribes and others (bondholders, bank syndicates, development/management companies) have leveraged significant investments to fuel this growth, betting heavily on the long-term success of the gaming projects.
In doing so, the question lurking in the minds of many investors (and seldom considered likely to need a definitive answer) has been: What happens if the bet goes bad? The recent credit freeze and recession has thrust this question to the forefront of the industry, particularly for creditors holding substantial Indian gaming debt. Like many issues involving the Indian gaming industry, the answer – and related issues – is yet to be discovered and is evolving with the law.
Commercial gaming debt restructurings are generally made against the backdrop of a well-defined and understood set of legal parameters (i.e. the U.S. Bankruptcy Code). But even here, there is some uncertainty as to the interplay of the bankruptcy laws and state gaming regulatory requirements.
Attempts to restructure tribal gaming debt will only add a number of other variables to the equation and impact several different interested parties (tribal operators, tribal members and casino employees, management companies, lenders/bondholders). Each of these will have a perspective about how the law should address tribal gaming debt restructurings that may, or may not, be consistent with the others.
Some of the questions that will need to be resolved include:
- Do U.S. bankruptcy laws apply to tribal gaming debt restructurings?
- What impact will tribal sovereignty and gaming laws have on restructuring attempts?
- How will the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and regulations adopted by the National Indian Gaming Commission interplay with “usual” debt work-out negotiations?
Student Note on IGRA and Tribal Criminal Jurisdiction
Michigan Casino Market Stagnant
Old news….
From the K’zoo Gazette:
The gaming-market “pie” has grown only slightly while being sliced into smaller pieces, analysts say
BY CHRIS KNAPE | Gazette News Service
Michigan’s economy is down, its unemployment is up and the auto industry is in a battle for its life.
But when it came to spending on lady luck at casinos, the state bucked national trends until winter set in.
Revenue at Michigan’s three commercial (non-Indian) casinos was up 1.3 percent in 2008, while commercial casinos around the country saw revenue decline 4.7 percent from record 2007 levels, according to state data and a study by the American Gaming Association.
Michigan’s tribal casinos, though not tracked by the association, also saw some revenue growth, based on records of payments they made via their state revenue-sharing agreements.
But growth in that sector was scattered, driven by the first full year of operations at the Four Winds Casino in New Buffalo.
“It’s a dynamic where you don’t know if it’s an aberration, or if it’s a peculiarity of the Michigan market,” said Eric Bush, administrative manager for the Michigan Gaming Control Board, which regulates the state’s casinos.
“It doesn’t seem to be making a downturn and following the economy.”
The upward trend is not expected to continue, however. Eric Kalm, executive director of the MGCB, said the big question now for the state is how big of a revenue drop it should expect.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.