gaming – Page 48 – Turtle Talk

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

January 21, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

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

January 16, 2013January 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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.

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in Arizona v. Tohono O’odham Nation

January 16, 2013May 8, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials so far:

Tohono O’odham Motion for Summary J

Arizona & Gila River & Salt River Cross-Motion

Update (5/8/13):

TON Reply

Arizona et al Reply

The complaint is here.

News coverage from Pechanga.

United Auburn Indian Community v. Salazar Complaint re: Trust Acquisition for Enterprise Rancheria of Maidu Indians of California

January 16, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint:

UAIC v Salazar Complaint

Federal Court Orders Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies in Pojoaque Tribal Gaming Contract Dispute

January 14, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Fine Consulting, Inc. v. Rivera (D. N.M.):

DCT Order Granting Rivera Motion

Fine Consulting Complaint

Rivera Motion to Dismiss

Fine Consulting Opposition

Rivera Reply

If anyone doubts the impact of good Indian law scholarship, then look here. Sarah Krakoff’s excellent Colorado Law Review article Tribal Civil Judicial Jurisdiction Over Nonmembers: A Practical Guide for Judges is all over this opinion.

Eighth Circuit Decides City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Ojibwe Indians Gaming Revenue Sharing Appeal

January 14, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in City of Duluth v. Fond Du Lac Band of Chippewa:

CA8 Opinion

Fond du Lac Brief

City of Duluth Brief

Fond du Lac Band Reply

City of Duluth Reply

From the court’s summary:

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. A binding adjudication by a federal agency, which has been tasked with interpreting and enforcing a statute enacted by Congress, represents a change in the law for the purposes of Rule 60(b); here, the National Indian Gaming Commission’s decision that the agreement between the parties concerning the operation of a casino was in violation of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act made illegal what the earlier consent decree between the parties was designed to enforce, and the district court did not err in deciding to grant prospective relief from continued enforcement of the 1994 consent decree by dissolving the decree as it related to the years 2011-2036; the district court erred in concluding that it could not grant retrospective relief under Rule 60(b)(6) and its ruling denying retrospective relief on rent payments from 2009 to 2011 is reversed, and the question remanded for further consideration.

Lower court materials here.