Quicken Loans Founder to Acquire Greektown Casino

Here.

Updated Documents in Enterprise Rancheria Trust Acquisition Case

Here are all of the materials now in the case consolidated as Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of Colusa Indian Community v. Salazar (E.D. Cal.) (we posted preliminary materials here):

Complaint here.

DCT Order denying TRO

Colusa Motion for PI

George Forman Affidavit in Spport of TRO

Citizens Motion for TRO

UAIC Motion for TRO

Consolidated Federal Opposition

Enterprise Rancheria Opposition

Citizens Reply

Colusa Reply

UAIC Reply

Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community v. Salazar Denial of TRO and Additional Documents

Complaint here.

Enterprise denying TRO and Mandamus

Patchak is indistinguishable from the present case because no Plaintiff claims an interest in the Proposed Site, meaning that this is not a quiet title action and the QTA’s limitation on suits related to Indian lands does not apply. Patchak squarely addressed the supposedly irreparable harm that Plaintiffs complain of and indicated that federal district courts do have  the power to strip the federal government of title to land taken  into trust for an Indian tribe under the APA so long as the claimant does not assert an interest in the land. In this case, Plaintiffs only seek to divest the government of its title. They do not assert an interest in the Proposed Site. Plaintiffs have    therefore not shown that the mere act of transferring the  Proposed Site into trust on February 1, 2013 constitutes   irreparable harm, and a TRO is therefore inappropriate.

Enterprise Docket Sheet 01302013
US Opposition – Enterprise

Federal Court Rejects Carcieri/NEPA/Other Challenges to North Fork Rancheria Trust Acquisition

Here are the materials in Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of Interior (D. D.C.):

Memorandum Opinion

Interior Motion to Change Venue

Stand Up Motion pt 1

Stand Up Motion pt 2

Stand Up Motion pt 3

Picayune Rancheria Memorandum

Interior Response to Picayune Memorandum

Interior Response

North Fork Rancheria Opposition

Picayune Reply

Stand Up Reply

Tenth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Gambling Addict’s Complaint against Muscogee

Here are the materials in Santana v. Muscogee (Creek) Nation:

Santana Brief

Muscogee Brief

CA10 unpublished opinion

Lower court materials here.

Opening Briefs in Broken Arrow Casino Appeal — UPDATED with Complete Briefing (3/4/13)

Here are the Tenth Circuit briefs so far in State of Oklahoma v. Hobia:

Kialegee Tribal Town Brief

Brief Amicus Curiae State of NM (filed 1-25-13) (W1843673)

State of Michigan Amicus Brief

Filed Brief of the Appellee (1-25-13) (W1843503)

Kialegee Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Opening Briefs in Alabama Supreme Court Case where Plaintiff and State Challenging Poarch Band Sovereignty under Carcieri

Here are the materials so far in Rape v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians:

Brief of Appellant

State AMICUS BRIEF – FILED

Update: Hildreth Motion for Leave to File Amicus [Escambia County]

The case arises from a jackpot claim at the tribal casino.

LSJ Article about Lansing Casino Lawsuit

Here.

GRAND RAPIDS — A federal judge Wednesday said he could decide within 30 days whether to allow Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette to halt a proposed Lansing casino.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker announced the timeline after attorneys from the state and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians argued in a Grand Rapids courtroom about whether Schuette’s six-count lawsuit, filed in September, should be dismissed.

Earlier coverage here.

Update in Columbe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe: Tribal Court Has Jurisdiction to Rule on Gaming Management Contract

Here are the materials in Columbe v. Rosebud Sioux Tribe (D. S.D.):

DCT Order Granting RST Motion

Columbe Motion for Summary J

RST Cross Motion for Summary J

Columbe Response

An excerpt:

Colombe now asks this Court to rule on the sole remaining issue from this Court’s September 23, 2011 Opinion and Order: Whether the Tribal Court had jurisdiction to hold that the oral modification to the NIGC-approved management contract was void. Colombe argues that the NIGC has the sole, exclusive authority to determine whether modifications to NIGC-approved management contracts can have any legal effect. Doc. 49 at 6-7. Colombe also argues that Defendants’ Tribal Court suit is prohibited because IGRA does not authorize a private cause of action. Doc. 49 at 8. Defendants counter that the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Supreme Court had jurisdiction to rule on the legal validity of the oral, unapproved modification to the approved management contract after Colombe raised the modification as a defense in the Tribe’s underlying contract suit. Doc. 59; Doc. 60. Defendants also assert that its Tribal Court suit is not for a “claimed IGRA violation” and therefore does not need to be authorized by the IGRA. Doc. 57 at 19.

Here are the materials on the Sept. 2011 order, and on the motion for reconsideration.

 

 

Supreme Court’s Recent Floating Home Decision a Relief to Dockside Casinos

The WSJ reports here.

An excerpt:

Things that float aren’t always boats.

So says the Supreme Court, which used a Florida marina dispute to address an issue that has stirred the waters since the early days of the American republic.

The ruling is a relief for dockside-casino operators, which didn’t want their operations subjected to broader legal liability under maritime law.

The opinion in Lozman v. City of Riveria Beach is here. SCOTUSblog page here. SCT haiku version.