gaming

Federal Court Confirms Labor Union Arbitration Award against Picayune Rancheria Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Unite Here Local 19 v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (E.D. Cal.):

1 Petition

11-1 Unite Here Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

15 Chukchansi Opposition

16 Unite Here Reply

18 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Respondents maintain that the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) does not apply to them because the statute does not expressly abrogate tribal sovereignty. This Court, however, need not determine whether the statute abrogates sovereignty, as Respondents have waived their sovereign immunity and consented to be sued in federal court. See Okla.Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 498 U.S. 505, 509 (1991) (“Suits against Indian tribes are thus barred by sovereign immunity absent a clear waiver by the tribe or congressional abrogation.”) (emphasis added). The CBA-which, again, Respondents concede they agreed to—provides:
For the sole purpose of enabling a suit to compel arbitration or to confirm an arbitration award under this Agreement or the Employer’s Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance, the Employer agrees to a limited waiver of sovereign immunity and consents to be sued in federal court, without exhausting tribal remedies.
Pet., Exh. A at 17 (emphasis added). There is no indication that Respondents entered into this unequivocal waiver involuntarily. See White v. Univ. of Cal., 765 F.3d 1010, 1025–26 (9th Cir.2014) (“A voluntary waiver by a tribe must be unequivocally expressed.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Contrary to Respondents’ suggestion, the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 134 S.Ct. 2024 (2014), does not compel a different result. In fact, that opinion reconfirmed that an Indian tribe may waive its sovereign immunity: “we have time and again treated the doctrine of tribal immunity as settled law and dismissed any suit against a tribe absent congressional authorization or a waiver.” 134 S.Ct. 2030–31 (internal quotation marks, brackets, and parentheses omitted); see also id. at 2035 (“[I]f a State really wants to sue a tribe for gaming outside Indian lands, the State need only bargain for a waiver of immunity.”).

Federal Court Rejects Gaming Bid of MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in State of Alabama v. 50 Serialized JLM Games (S.D. Ala.):

8 Alabama Motion to Remand

10 MOWA Motion to Dismiss

23 Alabama Response to Motion to Dismiss

31 MOWA Amended Notice of Removal to Federal Court

32 Alabama Surreply re Motion to Remand

36 Magistrate Report

39 DCT Order

NIGC Prevails in Dispute with City of Duluth over the Fond du Luth Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The D.C. District Court granted the NIGC’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the City’s APA challenge to the Fond-du-Luth NOV. Here is the order in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. D.C.):

APA case — District Court Op. (March 31 2015)

An excerpt:

Plaintiff City of Duluth, Minnesota, brings this action challenging a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) that the National Indian Gaming Commission (the “Commission”) issued to the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (the “Band”) with respect to Band’s gaming establishment in the City of Duluth. This action is the latest step in a long saga pertaining to the relationship of the Band and the City of Duluth with respect to gaming, including proceedings in federal court in Minnesota, before the National Indian Gaming Commission, and, now, before this Court as well. In a nutshell, in the NOV, issued July 12, 2011, the National Indian Gaming Commission informed the Band that the 1994 Agreement between the Band and the City of Duluth violated the requirement that the Band have the “sole proprietary interest” in the gaming activity pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. The City of Duluth filed this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming that the NOV, first, was arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law, and, second, exceeded Defendants’ authority under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The City of Duluth requests that the NOV be set aside and requests related declaratory and injunctive relief. The Federal Defendants—the Commission and Jonodev Chaudhuri, in his official capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission—argue that the NOV neither was arbitrary or capricious nor exceeded the scope of the Commission’s authority. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s [24] Motion for Summary Judgment and the Federal Defendants’ [26] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s [24] Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ [26] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court concludes that the NOV was not arbitrary or capricious; that it did not exceed the scope of the Commission’s authority; and that none of the other legal infirmities that Plaintiff identifies are grounds for setting aside the NOV. Accordingly, this case is dismissed in its entirety.

Briefs are here.

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.