Update in Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Miwok

The United States has filed an amicus curiae brief confirming that the trial court erred in disregarding the NIGC’s action.  The United States confirmed that the state courts are required to defer to the agency’s views, as expressed in an NIGC opinion letter, the Chairman’s decision disapproving the agreement, and in the United States’ amicus brief, itself:

[T]he Superior Court was obliged to exercise its jurisdiction consistent with IGRA and IGRA’s bar on the enforcement of unapproved management contracts. Instead of acknowledging this bar and the need to resolve whether the ELA was an unapproved management contract (consistent with deference principles), the Superior Court simply denied the Tribe’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the Chairman’s 2009 Disapproval was not “final agency action” binding on the state court. . . .

This is a non sequitur. A final disapproval decision by the NIGC is not necessary to render an unapproved management contract void. Such contract is and remains void unless and until the NIGC takes formal action to approve the contract. 25 C.F.R. §§ 533.1(a), 533.7. The NIGC’s disapproval of the ELA merely preserved the legal status quo. Thus, even if the 2009 Disapproval was invalid due to procedural errors – a question over which the Superior Court had no jurisdiction (see infra) – a ruling setting aside the NIGC’s decision would not resolve the preemption question.

. . .

[T]he present case involves the NIGC’s determination on a threshold legal issue involving an interpretation and application of the NIGC regulation defining “management contract.” The NIGC expressed its regulatory interpretation in the 2009 Disapproval and the 2007 OpinionLetter (as well as in the present amicus brief). The NIGC is entitled to deference in the interpretation of its own regulations, even when such interpretation is not rendered in a formal rulemaking or other final agency action.

Here is the United States’ brief and the parties’ briefs in response:

United States’ Amicus Brief

Sharp’s Response to United States’ Amicus Brief

Tribe’s Response to United States’ Amicus Brief

The merits briefs are here.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Former Chukchansi CEO for Fraud and Theft from a Tribal Gaming Establishment

Here is the opinion in United States v. Livingston. An excerpt:

The panel affirmed convictions for mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341) and theft by an officer or employee of a gaming establishment on Indian lands (18 U.S.C. § 1168(b)).

The panel held that the location of the gaming establishment is not an element of the offense under § 1168(b), and that the allegations in the indictment were sufficiently specific to apprise the defendant of the specific offenses with which he was charged.

The panel also held that the district court’s jury instructions correctly defined “intent to defraud,” and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by admitting prior acts evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b).

Here are the materials:

Livingston Opening Brief

US Answer Brief

Livingston Reply

Lower court materials here, here, here, and here.

Jeff Livingston was also the gaming manager at Grand Traverse Band.

Federal Indictment of Sault Tribe Casino Cheaters

Here is the indictment in United States v. Koster (W.D. Mich.):

Koster et al Indictment

News coverage here.

Federal Court Dismisses FLSA Complaint against Potawatomi Bingo Casino (Forest County)

Here are materials from Smith v. Potawatomi Bingo Casino (E.D. Wis.):

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

FCPC Motion to Dismiss

Federal Court Dismisses Cherokee County Challenge to Quapaw Casino

Here are the materials in Board of Commissioners of Cherokee County Kansas v. Jewell (D. D.C.):

DCT Order Dismissing Cherokee County Suit

Interior Motion to Dismiss

Cherokee County Opposition

Cherokee County Motion for Summary J

Interior Opposition

News coverage here.

AmLawDaily Coverage of Foxwoods Restructuring Deal

Here.

An excerpt:

Though Yoon won’t say if Weil is handling other Indian casino matters, there is likely be more such work for some work to snap up in the not-too-distant future. Moody’s downgraded its ratings on several Indian-owned casino bonds earlier this year, issuing a “probability of default” rating on $200 million worth of notes tied to a Sacramento  casino operated by the Buena Vista band of the Me-Wuk Indian tribe and a similar warning on $300 million in notes connected to a Washington State casino operated by the Snoqualmie Tribe.

National Labor Relations Board Asserts Jurisdiction over Chickasaw Nation Casino

Here is the decision:

Chickasaw July 12 2013 Board Decision

Seminole Tribe Intervenes in Suit Challenging Florida State Gaming Laws

Here are the materials in Gameroom Superstores LLC v. Brodsky (M.D. Fla.):

DCT order Granting Seminole Motion to Intervene

Gameroom Amended Complaint

Sixth Circuit Briefing in State of Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians Complete

Here are the briefs:

Sault Tribe CA6 Substitute Brief

Michigan Brief

NHBPIAmicusBrief

Saginaw Chippewa Amicus Brief

Sault Tribe Reply

 

Tohono O’odham Nation Seeks More than $4Million in Attorney Fees from State of Arizona

Here is the motion in State of Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation (D. Ariz.):

TON Motion for Attorney Fees

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-348 reads:

A. In addition to any costs that are awarded as prescribed by statute, a court shall award fees and other expenses to any party other than this state or a city, town or county that prevails by an adjudication on the merits in any of the following:

1. A civil action brought by the state or a city, town or county against the party.

Prior post here. H/T here.