Here are the materials in this iteration of City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (D. Minn.):
258 City of Duluth Motion for Stay
262 Fond du Lac Rule 60 Motion
266 Fond du Lac Response to Motion for Stay
269 City Response to Rule 60 Motion
270 Reply in Support of Rule 60 Motion
News coverage here.
This case is on remand from the Eighth Circuit; materials here.
The City has a pending matter against the NIGC here.
Here.
Oral argument was today. We’ll post the oral argument audio when it becomes available.
For Immediate Release
(October 6, 2013) Manistee, MI
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS
COMPLETED UNDER TRIBAL LAW
Deepening a five year relationship under the labor law of the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, the United Steelworkers Union and the Manistee, Michigan-based Little River Casino Resort have completed two new collective bargaining agreements. The contracts, which cover employees within the Resort’s security and slot tech departments, were ratified late last week by the USW.
“As far as we are aware, no other Indian tribe in the country has as many collective bargaining agreements entered into pursuant to tribal law,” said Wendell Long, the General Manager for the Resort, and a member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. “This exemplifies tribal sovereignty at work,” said Virgil Johnson, the elected Speaker of the Band’s Tribal Council, which is responsible for enacting the Band’s laws. “We are very proud of our success,” he said.
In 2007, the Band enacted its Labor Organizations and Collective Bargaining Law to cover employees within its public sector operations, including the Little River Casino Resort. The Band conducts gaming as a substitute for a tax base to generate revenue to support governmental services it provides to its members under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Band’s gaming revenues from the Resort provide the bulk of funds for its health programs, police department, and court system, as well as many other governmental programs.
The Band’s labor law establishes a structure for union elections, bargaining rules, and the resolution of unfair labor practice charges. “We found much to learn from the way state governments regulate collective bargaining,” said Speaker Johnson, “but in the end, this law reflects the unique values of our Ottawa community.”
The Resort and the USW have engaged in bargaining unit elections and collective bargaining over employment terms and conditions affecting more than 100 employees at the Resort. The first agreement was signed in December, 2010 and two others followed by October of 2012. According to Bill Laney, USW Staff Representative: “The USW and the Resort have developed a good working relationship and the successful outcome of these negotiations is proof that the Tribe’s collective bargaining law is now working. It gives employees a voice in determining their wages, hours and working conditions and the ratification of these two contracts shows that unit members are satisfied with the results.”
Ogema Larry Romanelli, the Band’s executive branch leader, has monitored management-union relations at the Band. “A lot of hard work and long hours have gone into the negotiation of these collective bargaining agreements,” he said. “They reflect the good faith of union and management, alike.”
Oral argument is scheduled before the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on Tuesday, October 8th in a case in which the National Labor Relations Board has challenged the authority of the Band to apply its labor law at the Resort.
For information on the Little River Band’s labor and employment laws, contact the Office of Public Affairs for the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians at 2608 Government Center Drive, Manistee, MI 49660. Office phone 231.723.8288. E-mail to gzaring@lrboi.com
Here are the materials in Corporate Commission of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Money Centers of America (D. Minn.):
155 Baena Advisors Motion to Dismiss
160 Real Estate Empowered Motion to Dismiss
169 Mille Lacs Motion for Summary J
180 Mille Lacs Opposition to 160
181 Mille Lacs Opposition to MCA Motions
182 MCA Opposition to Mille Lacs Motion
185 MCA Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss
186 MCA Reply in Support of Motion for Summary J
199 Melanie Banjamin Motion to Quash
205 MCA Opposition to Motion to Quash
211 MJ Order Granting Motion to Quash
240 DCT Order re Motion to Dismiss
241 MJ Order re Motion to Compel
Prior materials here.
Here are the materials in Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Nash (D. N.M.):
52 — Pueblo Motion for Summary J
63 — Pueblo Reply to Judge Nash
An excerpt:
Specifically, the Court hereby enters a declaration that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. (“IGRA”) does not authorize an allocation of jurisdiction from tribal court to state court over a personal injury claim arising from the allegedly negligent serving of alcohol on Indian land, and further that the New Mexico State District Court does not have jurisdiction in the case of Gina Mendoza, Michael Hart and Dominic Montoya v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Santa Ana Star Casino, CIV 2007-005711 (“underlying state court litigation”).
Prior federal court order and materials here.
Grand Ronde’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Grand Ronde Exhibit One
Clark County et al Motion for Summary Judgment
Previous coverage of the case here.
Here is the opinion in Sheffer v. Buffalo Run Casino.
From the court’s syllabus:
Charles Sheffer, Jennifer Sheffer, and their minor son, J.S., were injured when their 18-wheeler tractor trailer collided with a rental vehicle leased to William Garris and driven by David Billups, both employees of Carolina Forge Company, L.L.C. Plaintiffs sued Carolina Forge on theories of respondeat superior and negligent entrustment. They also sued the Buffalo Run Casino, the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, and PTE, Inc. for dram-shop liability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Carolina Forge, finding as a matter of law Carolina Forge was not liable for its employees’ actions under a theory of respondeat superior and did not negligently entrust the rental vehicle to its employees. The trial court also dismissed, sua sponte, the Buffalo Run Casino, PTE, Inc., and the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, determining that injunctions issued by the Honorable Lee R. West in the Western District of Oklahoma in Case No. 10-CV-00050-W and Case No. 10-CV-01339-W, prohibited suit for any tort claims against a tribe or a tribal entity. Plaintiffs appealed both orders, and we retained the appeals. In Sheffer v. Carolina Forge Co., 2013 OK 48, 306 P.3d 544, we reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to Carolina Forge and found issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on both the respondeat superior and negligent entrustment claims. In the present case, we find the Peoria Tribe is immune from suit in state court for compact-based tort claims because Oklahoma state courts are not courts of competent jurisdiction as the term is used in the model gaming compact. We also hold that because Congress has not expressly abrogated tribal immunity from private, state court dram-shop claims and because the Peoria Tribe and its entities did not expressly waive their sovereign immunity by applying for and receiving a liquor license from the State of Oklahoma, the tribe is immune from dram-shop liability in state court. The trial court’s dismissal of the Peoria Tribe and its entities is affirmed.
The Bay Mills Indian Community’s pending Supreme Court case has sucked a lot of the oxygen out of the room here in Michigan. And it has definitely overshadowed an impending showdown between the State of Michigan and seven six* tribes over the negotiation of new Class III gaming compacts.
The negotiation of new tribal-state gaming compacts here in Michigan will offer a unique case study in how the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s compact provisions affect the negotiation of “second generation” gaming compacts – compacts that follow, rather than extend, a tribe’s previous compact.
We’re going to take a closer look at these negotiations in upcoming posts. But, first, it is important to understand how the current agreements – approved in 1993 – came into effect. WARNING: Marathon Blog Post.
THE HISTORY
As in other parts of the country, a number of Michigan tribes were already operating Class III gaming when IGRA was enacted in 1988. In enacting IGRA, Congress required tribes to negotiate a gaming compact with states to engage in Class III gaming – even for those tribes that were already operating such games. Congress also required states to negotiate these agreements in “good faith.”
Six Michigan tribes sought to negotiate Class III gaming compacts with the State of Michigan almost immediately after IGRA’s enactment. Then-Governor Jim Blanchard refused to negotiate over Class III slot machines, and ultimately refused to enter into a compact.
In 1990, those six tribes filed a lawsuit against the State of Michigan in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, alleging that the State violated IGRA’s requirement to negotiate in good faith, and seeking a declaratory judgment that Class III slot machines would be permissible to include in the Compact.
In 1992 – 4 years before the Supreme Court’s decision in Seminole – the Western District of Michigan ruled in that lawsuit (Sault Ste. Marie Tribe v. Engler) that the Tribes’ lawsuit was barred by sovereign immunity.
After an unsuccessful appeal, the Tribes amended their lawsuit to name then-Governor John Engler as the defendant in an Ex parte Young action. That case – Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, et al. v. Engler – ended through a negotiated settlement agreement. That agreement was entered by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan as a Consent Judgment in 1993. That Consent Judgment included several key provisions that will impact ongoing compact negotiations:
Concurrent with the Western District of Michigan’s entry of the Consent Judgment, the seven Tribes and the State of Michigan entered into separate Class III gaming compacts that were identical to one another. Those gaming compacts were approved by the Department of the Interior in 1993.
Each of those compacts stated that they would remain in effect “for a term of twenty (20) years from the date it becomes effective[.]” In other words, they would remain in effect until November 2013.
But those compacts also included language that has created some…(ahem) room for interpretation:
[12(B)] At least one year prior to the expiration of twenty (20) years after the Compact becomes effective, and thereafter at least one year prior to the expiration of each subsequent five (5) year period, either party may serve written notice on the other of its right to renegotiate this Compact.
Here are the materials in Martin v. Quapaw Tribe (N.D. Okla.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.