gaming

Oklahoma v. Hobia Cert Petition

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (as filed)

Question presented:

Does Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S.Ct. 2024 (2014), require the dismissal of a State’s suit to prevent tribal officers from conducting gaming that would be unlawful under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and a state-tribal compact when

• the suit for declaratory and injunctive relief has been brought against tribal officials – not the tribe;
• the gaming will occur in Indian country, on the land of another tribe; and

• the state-tribal compact’s arbitration provision does not require arbitration before filing suit?

Lower court materials here.

North Fork Rancheria Sues California Alleging Violation of IGRA Good Faith Negotiation Obligation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the complaint in North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California v. State of California (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) requires states, upon request by an Indian tribe, to “negotiate with the Indian tribe in good faith to enter into” “a Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of gaming activities” on the tribe’s “Indian lands.” 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A). IGRA also confers jurisdiction on this Court over “any cause of action initiated by an Indian tribe arising from the failure of a State to enter into negotiations with the Indian tribe for the purpose of entering into a Tribal-State compact under paragraph (3) or to conduct such negotiations in good faith.” Id. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i). This action is brought pursuant to § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i) and seeks a declaration that Defendant the State of California (“the State” or “California”) has failed to comply with § 2710(d)(3)(A)’s requirement that the State negotiate in good faith with Plaintiff North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California (“the Tribe”) to enter into an enforceable tribal-state gaming compact, and an order directing the State to conclude an enforceable compact with the Tribe within 60 days or submit to mediation, see id. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(iv).

California Valley Miwok Tribe v. California Gambling Control Commission Complaint

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

1 Complaint

Sault Tribe Motion to Dismiss Michigan Gaming Suit

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the new materials in the case captioned State of Michigan v. Payment (W.D. Mich.):

2015-03-20 Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

2015-03-20 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

71 Michigan Response to Motion to Dismiss

72 Sault Tribe Reply

The state’s amended complaint is here.

Federal Court Holds Tribal Exhaustion Doctrine Does Not Apply to ERISA Claims

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Coppe v. Sac & Fox Casino Healthcare Plan (D. Kan.):

9 Sac and Fox Motion to Dismiss

13 Response

14 Reply

15 DCT Order

An excerpt:

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

Matthew 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

Matthew 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

Matthew 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

Kate Fort

Order here.

Materials here.

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

Matthew 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.