gaming – Page 13 – Turtle Talk

The petition is here.

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Bettor Racing v. NIGC

May 9, 2015May 8, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Flandreau Brief

NIGC Brief

Other briefs TK.

Lower court materials here.

Fond du lac Band Prevails (Again) before Eighth Circuit in Gaming Compact Dispute

May 8, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.

Citizen Potawatomi Nation Demand for Arbitration against Oklahoma and Governor Fallin

April 30, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

2704764 – CPN-OTC Demand for Arbitration

An excerpt:

The Citizen Potawatomi Nation (“Nation” or “Claimant”), a federally-recognized Indian tribal government, hereby demands arbitration of a dispute between the Nation and the State of Oklahoma (“Oklahoma” or “Respondent”). The Nation seeks:

(1) determination by an arbitrator under AAA Rule R-7 of the arbitrator’s own jurisdiction and the scope of the parties’ arbitration agreement, which is part of the Dispute Resolution procedures within a Tribal-State Gaming Compact that the Nation claims to provide the exclusive means by which Oklahoma may enforce obligations set forth in the Compact;

(2) determination by an arbitrator of whether the Dispute Resolution (including arbitration) procedures of the Compact are the exclusive means by which Oklahoma may seek to enforce against the Nation’s Compact facilities the Nation’s duties imposed to comply with state laws governing sales and service of alcoholic beverages, as imposed by Compact Part 4(I);

Federal Court Dismisses Employment Suit against San Manuel

April 30, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Harris v. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (C.D. Cal.):

17-1 Motion to Dismiss

19 Opposition

22 DCT Order

Stop the Casino 101 Coalition v. Brown Cert Petition

April 21, 2015April 20, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Does the federal government have the unilateral power to alter California’s historic territorial jurisdiction and transfer that jurisdiction to an Indian tribe?

2. If the answer to the first question is affirmative, should a federal statute restoring tribal recognition and authorizing the United States to accept fee title to unspecified private lands within California’s borders be construed as transferring territorial jurisdiction from the state to the tribe when the statutory language is silent on that subject?

3. Can a state’s territorial jurisdiction shift by implication, or is an express, unequivocal acceptance of jurisdiction required under 40 U.S.C. § 3112?

Lower court materials here.

Update in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri

April 20, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the new materials in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri (E.D. Cal.):

60-1 Jamul Action Committee Motion for PI

62 Tribal Opposition to Motion for PI

63 NIGC Opposition to Motion for PI

67 Jamul Action Committee Reply

75-1 Rosales & Toggery Motion to File Amicus

75-2 Rosales & Toggery Amicus Brief

83 Tribal Opposition

84 NIGC Opposition

92 DCT Order Denying Amicus Motion

Previous postings here and here.

Decision in Tulalip Tribes v. Washington

April 17, 2015Kate Fort2 Comments

Opinion here.

Previous coverage here.

Our conclusion is consonant with our instruction in Shoshone-Bannock Tribes that courts should hold compacting parties to the ordinary meaning of terms in their agreements. Id. at 1098–100. The plain language of the Spokane Compact shows that the Inter-Tribal Fund mechanism available to the Spokane Tribe carries with it interdependent conditions and consequences. Tulalip’s amendment would not match those terms. We take no view on whether the terms of Appendix Spokane are in fact more favorable than those included in the Tulalip Compact. We hold simply that Tulalip is not entitled as a matter of law to the more selective set of terms in its proposed amendment.2 The most-favored tribe clause does not allow a “pick and choose” arrangement. The district court correctly entered judgment for the State. Simply put, Tulalip’s proposal does not mirror the restrictions of Appendix Spokane, and those are the terms to which the State agreed.