Here is the order in Stand Up for California! v. State of California:
Prior post here.
gaming
Federal Court Issues Stipulated Injunction in California v. Paskenta Band
Here:
30 DCT Order Granting Injunction
An excerpt:
On July 7, 2014, the court was prepared to hear arguments regarding the entry of a preliminary injunction and whether the court should enter a broader injunction than requested by plaintiff with respect to class III gaming activity on Indian lands of the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties informed the court they had reached a stipulation to entry of a preliminary injunction in substantially the same form as the temporary restraining order entered in this action on June 18, 2014. The parties also advised that upon entry of the preliminary injunction order, they agreed to a stay of all further litigation pending a status conference in October 2014.
BIA Decision Approving Glendale Area Trust Land Acquisition for Gaming Purposes for Tohono O’Odham Nation
Here:
2014-07-03 Washburn Letter to Norris re Trust Decision
This is on remand from the Ninth Circuit’s mandate.
New York Appellate Division Refuses to Disturb Injunction in Chukchansi Leadership Dispute
Here is the opinion in Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Chukchansi Economic Development
Authority (N.Y. A.D.):
An excerpt:
Appellants contend that defendants-respondents Nancy Ayala, Karen Wynn, Charles Sargosa, and Tracy Brechbuehl (the Ayala faction or the individual Ayala defendants) do not enjoy sovereign immunity because their actions were illegal and not performed in an official capacity. However, to decide whether the Ayala faction’s actions were illegal, a court would have to determine whether the Ayala faction was the legitimate Tribal Council; this it may not do (see Sac & Fox, 340 F3d at 767).
Briefs:
Federal Court Dismisses Illegal Gambling Indictments at St. Regis Mohawk
Here are the materials in United States v. Laughing (N.D. N.Y.):
Federal Court Finds Jurisdiction in Tribal Dispute with Massachusetts over Regulation of Gaming on Martha Vineyard
Here are the materials so far in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):
18 Massachusetts Motion to Remand
21 Opposition to Motion to Remand
An excerpt:
This lawsuit involves a dispute between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a federally recognized Indian tribe as to who has regulatory jurisdiction over civil gaming on Indian lands on Martha’s Vineyard. The Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe and related entities have taken steps to commence commercial gaming operations on tribal lands without a license from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts contends that by doing so, the Tribe violated a 1983 settlement agreement that subject the lands in question to state civil and criminal jurisdiction. 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, defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. The Commonwealth has moved to remand the matter to state court. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.
More Filings in California v. Paskenta Band
Here are additional filings in State of California v. Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians (E.D. Cal.):
22 – Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians’ Third Party Complaint
23-1 – Second Declaration of Vice Chairman David Swearinger
26 – Opposition to Supplemental Brief Regarding Expansion of Existing Injunctive Relief
Federal Court Sends Coeur d’Alene Tribe Poker Dispute to Arbitration
Here are the updated materials in State of Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe (D. Idaho):
Prior briefs here.
Massachusetts High Court Puts State Gaming Ban Initiative on Ballot
Here is the opinion in Abdow v. Attorney General (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct.).
We posted links to briefs here.
An excerpt:
The issue presented on appeal is whether an initiative petition meant to prohibit casino and slots gambling and abolish parimutuel wagering on simulcast greyhound races meets the requirements set forth in art. 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution and, therefore, may be considered by voters at the November Statewide election. The Attorney General concluded that it did not and, accordingly, declined to certify it for inclusion on the ballot. The plaintiffs, ten Massachusetts voters who submitted the proposed initiative for certification, filed a complaint challenging the Attorney General’s decision and sought an order requiring the Attorney General to certify the petition. We conclude that the Attorney General erred in declining to certify, and grant the requested relief so that the initiative may be decided by the voters at the November election.
Federal Court Issues TRO in Paskenta Leadership Dispute to Prevent Disturbance of Gaming Operations
Here are the updated materials in State of California v. Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians (E.D. Cal.):
An excerpt:
Based upon the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the State’s motion for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED without requiring the State to post security, and that the Tribe, and all of its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons acting under the Tribe’s direction and control, including both factions or groups currently claiming to constitute the tribal government, are hereby ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from:
1. Attempting to disturb, modify or otherwise change the circumstances currently in effect with respect to operation of the Rolling Hills Casino in Corning, California.
2. Deploying any armed personnel of any nature within 100 yards from the Casino, the property on which the Casino is located, and tribal properties surrounding the Casino including the nearby hotels, gas station, and RV park (collectively, Tribal Properties).
3. Possessing, carrying, displaying, or otherwise having firearms on the Tribal Properties. This order will remain in effect until 6 p.m. on July 2, 2014 unless modified by the court before then, or extended by the court to continue in effect thereafter. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(2).
At the preliminary injunction hearing on June 30, 2014, the court will entertain further argument regarding whether the court should enter a broader injunction preventing any class III gaming activity on Paskenta lands. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii). Any supplemental briefing advancing this position must be filed by June 23, and any opposition briefing by June 27; no brief shall exceed 20 pages.
Complaint and motion here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.