gaming – Page 14 – Turtle Talk

This case is now before the court upon a motion to dismiss or stay for failure to exhaust tribal remedies. The motion is brought by defendant Sac & Fox Casino Healthcare Plan. This motion asks the court to rule as a matter of comity that before bringing a claim in this court, plaintiff must bring an ERISA action for recovery of insurance benefits under the casino’s nongovernmental plan in tribal court. We assume for purposes of this order that plaintiff is not a member of the Sac & Fox Tribe and that the Plan is not a “governmental plan” as defined in ERISA. We hold that Congress has preempted the tribe’s adjudicatory authority over ERISA claims and, therefore, exhaustion of tribal remedies is not required.

Paskenta Band Files RICO Action against Former Leaders and Officials

March 11, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians v. Crosby (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

Through this action the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians (the “Tribe”), on behalf of its three hundred plus Tribal members, together with its principal business vehicle, the Paskenta Enterprises Corporation (“PEC”) seek to hold responsible a cadre of individuals who, over the course of approximately 17 years, took over control of the Tribal government and PEC. Through a concerted and systematic program of fraud, coercion, intimidation, extortion, bribery and deception, these individuals stole and otherwise diverted tens of millions dollars in Tribal money for their own personal benefit, as well as for those who substantially assisted them in this scheme.

News coverage here.

Wisconsin COA Affirms Immunity of Tribal Enterprise from Employment Claim

March 10, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion in Harris v. Lake of the Torches Resort & Casino (Wis. App.):

2015.03.10 – Court of Appeals Opinion – Harris Appeal II

Briefs are here.

Kansas Sues NIGC over Quapaw Indian Lands Opinion

March 10, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in State of Kansas v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. Kan.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

In this action, the Plaintiffs challenge and seek relief from the November 21, 2014 determination of National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) officials that a 124 acre strip of land in Kansas acquired by the Quapaw Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma (Quapaw or the Tribe) and put into trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for non-gaming purposes qualifies for gaming under the “last recognized reservation exception” to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s (IGRA) general prohibition on gaming on land acquired after October 17, 1988. See 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a)(2)(B); 25 C.F.R. § 292.4(b)(2).

Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the November 21, 2014 determination because the strip of land was taken into trust by the Department of Interior for non-gaming purposes and because the NIGC incorrectly applied 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(2)(B), thereby depriving the State of Kansas of the governor’s statutory right to concur in and to veto gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(A)

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Held in Contempt over Gaming

March 9, 2015Kate Fort

Order here.

Materials here.

Rhode Island Supreme Court Rejects Narragansett’s Constitutional Challenge to 2011 Casino Act

March 5, 2015March 5, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Narragansett Indian Tribe v. State.

An excerpt:

The plaintiff, the Narragansett Indian Tribe (Tribe), appeals from the entry of partial summary judgment in the Superior Court in favor of the
defendant, the State of Rhode Island (state), and the intervenor defendant, UTGR, Inc. d/b/a
Twin River (UTGR), finding that the 2011 Casino Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 61.2 of title 42
(Casino Act or the act) is not facially unconstitutional. For the reasons set forth in this opinion,
we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

News coverage here.

Massachusetts Gaming Claims against Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Survive Motions to Dismiss; Counterclaims Do, Too

March 2, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the updated materials in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):

65 Massachusetts Opposition to Rule 19 Motion

67 Aquinnah-Gay Head Community Opposition to 11th Amendment Motion to Dismiss

71 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Reply in Support of Rule 19 Motion

72 Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss on Immunity Grounds

77 Massachusetts Motion to Dismiss

86 Massachusetts Officials Motion to Dismiss

87 Wampanoag Tribe Opposition to Massachusetts Immunity Motion

88 Massachusetts Reply

95 DCT Order Denying Motions to Dismiss

An excerpt:

This lawsuit involves a dispute between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a federally recognized Indian tribe concerning regulatory jurisdiction over civil gaming on Indian lands on Martha’s Vineyard. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) and related entities have taken steps to commence commercial gaming operations on tribal lands without a license from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth contends that operating gaming facilities without such a license would violate a 1983 settlement agreement that subjects the lands in question to state civil and criminal jurisdiction (and thus subjects them to state laws regulating gaming). Count 1 of the complaint alleges breach of contract, and Count 2 seeks a declaratory judgment.

The Commonwealth filed suit in state court on December 2, 2013. On December 30, 2013, the Tribe removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. On August 6, 2014, the Court granted motions to intervene by the Town of Aquinnah and the Aquinnah/Gay Head Community Association (“AGHCA”). The Tribe has moved to dismiss the AGHCA complaint on the basis of sovereign immunity and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; it has further moved to dismiss all three complaints (with leave to amend) for failure to join the United States as a required party.

On October 24, 2014, the Tribe filed an amended answer that included a counterclaim against the Commonwealth and counterclaims against three third-party defendants (all of whom are officials of the Commonwealth). Plaintiff and third-party defendants have moved to dismiss the counterclaims on the grounds of sovereign immunity (as to the counterclaims against the Commonwealth) and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

For the reasons stated below, the motions of the Tribe will be denied and the motion of counterclaim-defendants will be granted in part and denied in part.

We posted motions to dismiss here. Materials on the state court removal and remand motions here. Complaint here.