Here is “Regulation and Oversight by the Federal Government, States, and Tribes.”
gaming
Ninth Circuit Sitting En Banc Rules in Favor of Big Lagoon Rancheria in Gaming Dispute with California
Here is the opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California:
From the court’s syllabus:
The en banc court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of a tribe that alleged that the State of California had failed to negotiate in good faith for a gaming compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for Class III gaming on a parcel of land taken into trust for the tribe by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Rejecting California’s argument that the tribe lacked standing to compel it to negotiate in good faith under the IGRA, the en banc court held that the State’s argument amounted to an improper collateral attack on the BIA’s decisions to take the parcel of land into trust and to designate the tribe as a federally recognized Indian tribe. The en banc court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a continuance for additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).
The en banc court dismissed the tribe’s cross-appeal as moot.
Links to oral argument and briefs here.
Citizen Potawatomi Nation Asks for Injunctive Relief from Arbitrator in Gaming Compact Dispute
Here is the pleading in Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. State of Oklahoma (Am. Arb. Assn.):
Application for Interim Injunctive Relief by Citizen Potawatomi Nation
Former Leaders of Jamul Indian Village Sues over Casino
Here is the complaint in Rosales v. Dutschke (E.D. Cal.):
An excerpt:
Plaintiffs, WALTER ROSALES and KAREN TOGGERY are Native American residents of San Diego County of one-half or more degree of California Indian blood, and former leaders of the half-blood Indian community, known as the Jamul Indian Village, “JIV,” who until recently lived on the Indian cemetery in Jamul, where their families have lived since the late 1800’s. Rosales and Toggery own and control their families’ human remains and funerary objects that were interred in burial sites below, on, and above the Indian cemetery. Those remains and objects have been feloniously disinterred and desecrated by the Defendants in a race to illegally build a casino on the U.S. government’s portion of the Indian cemetery property before they are stopped and the law is enforced.
Government Moves to Dismiss Kansas Challenge to NIGC Indian Lands Opinion re: Quapaw
Here are the materials so far in State of Kansas v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. Kan.):
Complaint here.
California Appeals Court Holds Pechanga Casino Officials May Be Sued in Employment Action
Here is the opinion in Cosentino v. Fuller:
An excerpt:
For sovereign immunity to apply, the claims against tribal officials must be based on actions the officials took in their official capacity and within the scope of their official authority. An official’s actions that exceed the scope of his or her authority are not protected. Although the parties do not dispute that as members of the tribe’s gaming commission Defendants had the authority to revoke a gaming license if they received reliable information the licensee no longer satisfied the requirements for obtaining a license or had engaged in conduct that reflected poorly upon the tribe or its gaming activities, the record lacks evidence showing Defendants received any such information about Cosentino or an explanation of why they revoked his gaming license. Cosentino, however, presented evidence supporting his claim Defendants exceeded the scope of their authority by revoking his license without cause and in retaliation against him. Sovereign immunity prevents us from inquiring into the reliability of information Defendants may have relied upon in revoking Cosentino’s license or any other errors they may have made, but it does not prevent inquiry into whether Defendants exceeded their authority by using their official position to intentionally harm Cosentino.
Materials in a related Ninth Circuit matter are here.
SCOTUS Denies Cert in Stop the Casino 101 v. California
Here is today’s order list.
Petition here.
Oklahoma v. Hobia is SCOTUSBlog Petition of the Day
Eighth Circuit Briefs in Bettor Racing v. NIGC
Fond du lac Band Prevails (Again) before Eighth Circuit in Gaming Compact Dispute
Here is the opinion in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa II:
City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 8th Circuit Decision
An excerpt:
We remand to the district court for its reconsideration of the Band’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion and direct it to consider all of the factors outlined here and in our prior remand order. Accordingly, the district court must give proper weight to the congressional intent that tribes be the primary beneficiaries of Indian gaming as well as other relevant factors we have previously identified. These include the facts that the City was on notice in 2009 of relevant actions and policies of the Gaming Commission and its warning in the 2011 Notice of Violation that the tribe would violate IGRA by making further rent payments to the city. As discussed in our prior City of Duluth opinion, such change in the governing law is also relevant to the question of whether an exceptional circumstance compels a grant of Rule 60(b)(6) relief. City of Duluth, 702 F.3d at 1154-55; see In re Pac. Far E. Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1989).
Briefs are here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.