gaming

California COA Decides Gaming Revenue Sharing Dispute involving California Valley Miwok Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. California Gambling Control Commission:

D064271

An excerpt:

California Valley Miwok Tribe (the Tribe) appeals following a summary judgment in favor of defendant California Gambling Control Commission (the Commission). In granting summary judgment, the trial court ruled that until the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) indicates, by entering into contract for federal benefits with the Tribe, that an internal tribal dispute about the Tribe’s membership and leadership has been resolved, the Commission is justified in continuing to hold in trust for the Tribe certain funds generated from Indian gaming in California that the Commission is required to distribute to the Tribe on a quarterly basis. As we will explain, we conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Commission, and accordingly we affirm the judgment.

Briefs here:

Appellant Brief

Intervenor Brief

Respondent Brief

Appellant Reply

Friends of Amador County v. Jewell a Petition to Watch for This Week’s SCT Conference

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Friends of Amador County v. Jewell
14-340
Issue: Whether, in an action by a third party against the Secretary of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., a putative Indian tribe may invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of the Secretary’s decision to recognize it as a tribe.

We posted on this matter here.

Also, the petition was yesterday’s petition of the day.

California Sues Iipay Nation Of Santa Ysabel over Internet Gaming

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the materials in State of California v.Iipay Nation Of Santa Ysabel (S.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

3-1 TRO Motion

Second Circuit Brief in IFP, Pro Se Employment Discrimination Complaint against Mohegan Sun Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the tribe’s brief in Tremblay v. Mohegan Sun Casino:

Mohegan Brief

From the brief:

On May 20, 2014, the Court granted the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The full text of the decision is as follows:

ORDER granting [27] Motion to Dismiss; denying [28] Motion Not to Dismiss. Plaintiff brings this action against her former employer, the Mohegan Sun Casino, alleging employment discrimination in violation of Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). The defendant has filed a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. The motion is granted. The Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut, which operates the defendant Casino through the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority (“MTGA”), is a federally recognized Indian tribe. “As a matter of federal law, an Indian tribe is subject to suit only where Congress has authorized the suit or the tribe *4 has waived its immunity.” Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Mfg. Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751, 754 (1998). Neither has occurred here. The Mohegan Tribe has not waived its immunity from suit in this Court, and the statutes under which plaintiff brings this action do not abrogate the Tribe’s immunity. Title VII is expressly inapplicable to Indian tribes, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)(1), and nothing in the ADEA revokes tribal sovereign immunity from private lawsuits. Garcia v. Akwesasne Housing Authority, 268 F.3d 76, 86 (2d Cir. 2001). Thus, plaintiff cannot bring claims of employment discrimination against an Indian tribe under Title VII or the ADEA. The Mohegan Tribe has enacted legislation establishing a tribal court system as well as legislation waiving the sovereign immunity of the Tribe and the Gaming Authority for discrimination claims by employees against the MTGA, but only in the Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court. Thus, plaintiff’s only remedy is to proceed in that Court. Accordingly, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s claims, defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 27] is granted and plaintiff’s motion not to dismiss [ECF No. 28] is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the case. So ordered. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on 05/20/2014. (Bialek, T.)

Friends of Amador County v. Jewell Cert Stage Briefs

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here:

FAC Cert Petition

Buena Vista Rancheria Opposition

FAC Reply

Question presented:

Whether, in an action by a third party against the Secretary of the Interior under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq., a putative Indian tribe may invoke its sovereign immunity to prevent a court from reviewing the lawfulness of the Secretary’s decision to recognize it as a tribe.

Lower court materials here.

Tenth Circuit Reverses Oklahoma v. Hobia Relying on Bay Mills

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion:

CA10 Opinion

Lower court supplemental briefs here.

Briefs are here.

Lower court materials here.

Buena Vista Rancheria Cert Opposition Brief

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Buena Vista Rancheria Opposition

The United States has waived its right to respond.

The cert petition is here.

Updated Materials in Michigan v. Sault Tribe — State Seeks to Sue Tribal Officials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in State of Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (W.D. Mich.):

49 Renewed Motion to Dismiss

53-1 State Motion for Relief

55 State Response to Motion to Dismiss

57 Soo Tribe Reply

58 Soo Tribe Response to Motion for Relief

60 State Reply

63 DCT Order to Adjourn and Reschedule Oral Argument

Sixth Circuit materials are here.

 

Paskenta Gaming Injunction Case Voluntarily Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the new materials in State of California v. Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians (E.D. Cal.):

32 California Motion for Dismissal without Prejudice

34 Paskenta Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

36 DCT Order Modifying Injunction

37 DCT Order Dismissing Case

We posted on this case here, here, here, and here.

Federal Court Issues Preliminary Injunction in Picayune Casino Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in State of California v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (E.D. Cal.):

9 McDonald Faction Opposition to TRO

10 Unification Council Response to TRO

25 California Motion for PI

30 Unification Council Response to PI Motion

31 NIGC Materials

33 McDonald Faction Response to PI Motion

42 California Reply in Support of PI Motion

48 DCT Order Granting PI

From the order:

The Court orders that the Tribe, and all if its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons acting under the Tribe’s direction and control, including all  groups currently claiming to constitute the tribal government, are hereby enjoined and  restrained from:

1. Attempting to disturb, modify or otherwise change the circumstances that were in effect at the Casino as of the afternoon of October 8, 2014. This prohibition includes, without limitation, attempting to repossess, or take control of the Casino in whole or in part. Payments in the ordinary course of business, including mandatory fees to the gaming commission actually supervising the Casino’s operations on October 8, 2014, and per capita tribal distributions based upon the Tribe’s membership list as of December 1, 2010, that are made in equal amounts, are not violative of this Injunction. No discretionary payments shall be made to any group claiming to be the duly constituted tribal council or claiming control over tribal matters.

2. Deploying tribal police or other armed personnel of any nature within 1,000 yards from the Casino, the property on which the Casino is located, and tribal properties surrounding the Casino, including the adjacent hotel and nearby tribal offices (collectively, “Tribal Properties”). This prohibition includes weapons of any nature or sort such as, by way of example but not limited to, firearms, tasers, knives, clubs, and batons. The only armed personnel allowed within the Tribal Properties are members of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies who are acting within the scope of their official duties.

3. Possessing, carrying, displaying, or otherwise having firearms on the Tribal Properties.

4. Removing documents or other property from the Casino, or continuing to possess, or possessing, documents or other property removed from the Casino during and after the morning of October 9, 2014. All such documents or other property that were removed and have not been returned shall be returned immediately.

5. Operating the Casino unless and until it is established before this Court that the public health and safety of Casino patrons, employees, and tribal members can be adequately protected from the violent confrontations and threats of violent confrontation among the tribal groups disputing leadership of the Tribe and control of the Casino. This prohibition shall have no further force and effect if the NIGC issues an order lifting its Closure Order and, within one-half court day thereof, the State does not object to reopening the Casino.

This preliminary injunction will remain in effect until resolution of the case by settlement or judgment or the Court’s further order.

TRO materials are here and here.