Snoqualmie Tribe Brings Civil Rights Action against City of Snoqualmie

Here is the complaint in Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. City of Snoqualmie (W.D. Wash.):

Complaint

An excerpt:

The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe, as parens patriae on behalf of its Tribal members acting through the Tribal member governing body of the Snoqualmie Casino, brings this legal action to stop the City of Snoqualmie from engaging in intentional race discrimination against the Tribe. The City is the only provider of sewer utility services to the Tribe’s Snoqualmie Casino, and has been providing such services under an agreement entered into in 2004. In October 2015, the City informed the Tribe that, despite the Tribe’s continuous payment for such services, the City intends to terminate providing sewer services to the Casino by no later than November 2016. The City is also actively blocking the Tribe’s efforts to obtain sewer services without relying exclusively on the City. Without sewer services, the Casino will be forced to close indefinitely, threatening the Tribe’s ability to offer core governmental programs and services to its Tribal members, jeopardizing business relationships upon which the Tribe depends, and risking the jobs of 1200 employees. The Tribe seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to protect its right to the full and equal benefit of the law, and to enjoin Defendants from terminating sewer services in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and RCW 35.67.310, and from interfering with business expectancies.

Galanda on Tribal Lawyer Ethics & Gaming Per Capita Disputes

Gabriel Galanda has sent me his paper for the 13th Annual Northwest Gaming Law Summit, “Tribal Lawyer Ethics: Gaming Per Capita Disputes”:

Gaming Law Summit Tribal Lawyer Ethics Gaming Per Capita Disputes

D.C. Circuit Briefs in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission

Here:

2015 07 06 Statement of Issues

2015 07 06 Underlying Decision in Case–Memorandum Opinion

2015 09 11 Appellant Brief

2015 11 18 Appellee Brief

2015 12 03 Fond du Lac Band Amicus for Appellee Brief

Duluth Reply

Lower court briefs:

25 Duluth Motion for Summary J

26 US Cross Motion for Summary J

27-1 Fond du Lac Proposed Amicus Brief

DCT order Denying NIGC Motion to Dismiss

Federal Motion to Dismiss

Duluth Opposition

Federal Reply

Complaint here.

 

 

Eighth Circuit Briefs in Corporate Commission of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians v. Wolfington

Here:

Wolfington Brief

Mille Lacs Brief

Lower court materials here.

NLRB Affirms NLRA Violations against Casino Pauma

Here are the materials:

Administrative Law Judges Decision June 4, 2015

Pauma Brief

NLRB Counsel Answer Brief

Board Decision

We posted on this case here.

Guardian Series on America’s Poorest Towns Includes Gila River

Link to article here.

 

District Court Dismisses Casino Developer’s Complaint Against Dickinson Wright

Here are the materials and order in the matter of MCZ Development Corp. et. al. v. Dickinson Wright PLLC et. al.:

Doc. 37- Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Doc. 38- Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Doc. 39- Reply in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Doc. 42- Memorandum Opinion and Order

Complaint and news coverage previously posted here.

Kialegee Casino Developers sued Dickinson Wright PLLC in Illinois District Court for malpractice in 2013.  In 2012, The Northern District of Oklahoma issued a preliminary injunction against Plaintiffs to stop a casino being placed 70 miles from the Tribe’s headquarters and the National Indian Gaming Commission issued a letter stating the Tribe didn’t have jurisdiction on the property.  The Plaintiffs alleged the law firm misrepresented potential opposition to their casino.

The Illinois court ruled the NIGC claim was premature since its letter didn’t represent a final agency decision and also dismissed the complaint with prejudice because Plaintiffs prevailed when the 10th Circuit reversed the injunction and ordered Oklahoma’s case dismissed.

Federal Court Orders California to Negotiate Gaming Compact with North Fork Rancheria

Doc. 25 – Order on cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings

Other documents posted previously here.

Summary Judgment Order in Commonwealth v. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head

Briefs and orders on the motion for summary judgment in re Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head:

Plaintiffs’ Motion

Doc. 113 – Commonwealth’s memo in support of its motion

Doc. 117 – Town of Aquinnah’s memo in support of its motion

Doc. 121 – AGHCA’s memo in support of its motion

Doc. 133 – Wampanoag Tribe’s opposition brief

Doc. 144 – Town of Aquinnah’s reply brief

Doc. 145 – AGHCA’s reply brief

Doc. 147 – Commonwealth’s reply brief

Defendant’s Motion

Doc. 119 – Wampanoag Tribe’s memo in support of its motion

Doc. 131 – Plaintiffs’ opposition brief

Doc. 150 – Wampanoag Tribe’s reply brief

Doc. 151 – Memorandum and Order

Mass. District Court has granted summary judgment to the Commonwealth against the Wampanoag Tribe (Aquinnah) for its proposed class II gaming facility on settlement lands.  The Court ruled that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 did not repeal the Massachusetts Settlement Act of 1987 which prohibited gaming on settlement lands.

Mashpee Casino Land Deal in E. Taunton, MA Finalized

The Mashpee Tribe is planning to locate its casino in Taunton, a struggling city in Southeastern Massachusetts, the city where my grandparents lived in fact. The land deal was just finalized. It sounds like the economic development will be a win-win for the Tribe and the Taunton. Here’s the Taunton Daily Gazette story. Previous coverage here.