Here are the materials in Muhammad v. Comanche Nation Casino (W.D. Okla.):
DCT Order Denying Muhammad Motion to Remand
Muhammad Response to Motion to Dismiss
Comanche Reply re Motion to Dismiss
Here are the materials in Muhammad v. Comanche Nation Casino (W.D. Okla.):
DCT Order Denying Muhammad Motion to Remand
Muhammad Response to Motion to Dismiss
Comanche Reply re Motion to Dismiss
Here: Seneca Brief.
Fond du Lac Band had asked for a continuance to allow the National Indian Gaming Commission to weigh in on the agreement with the City of Duluth. No go. Here are the materials in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (D. Minn.):
Magistrate Report denying Motion for Continuance
Prior summary judgment materials favoring the City are here.
Here is the opinion in Northville Downs v. Governor.
Here is the complaint in City of Glendale v. United States (D. Ariz.): City of Glendale Complaint. News article here, via Pechanga.
And here is the earlier complaint filed in regards to the same casino project, filed by Gila River.
Here: LDF Corrected Brief, and LDF Corrected Addendum.
Apparently, the jurisdictional issue is whether the court has jurisdiction under the diversity statute over the Lake of the Torches EDC. LDF writes:
This Court should follow the Ninth Circuit and hold that “a corporation organized under tribal law should be analyzed for diversity jurisdiction purposes as if it were a state or federal corporation,” while still enjoying the same sovereign immunity as the tribe. Cook, 548 F.3d at 723, 726. This approach follows the plain language of the diversity statute, which provides that a corporation is a citizen of “the State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(2). For the Corporation, that is Wisconsin. The Eighth Circuit’s test, which looks to whether a tribal entity operates as “an arm of the tribe and not as a mere business,” ignores the language of the statute and focuses on the function of a tribal entity, finding that where it is governmental, as is the Corporation’s, Doc. 31 at 2-3, the entity is treated like a tribe and is not considered a citizen of any state. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Tribal Court of the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation, 495 F.3d 1017, 1021 (8th Cir. 2007). Under the more practical Ninth Circuit test, which this Court appears to have used, see supra at n.6, the parties are diverse and subject-matter jurisdiction exists.
The court also set October 20 as the oral argument date.
Here is the complaint in Gila River Indian Community v. United States (D. Ariz.): Gila River Complaint.
Here: California Cert Petition.
Questions presented:
1. Whether a state demands direct taxation of an Indian tribe in compact negotiations under Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, when it bargains for a share of tribal gaming revenue for the State’s general fund.
2. Whether the court below exceeded its jurisdiction to determine the State’s good faith in compact negotiations under Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, when it weighed the relative value of concessions offered by the parties in those negotiations.
Lower court opinion here.
Here is the order in United States v. Livingston (E.D. Cal.): DCT Order Denying Livingston Motion to Dismiss.
And we posted the indictment for theft from a tribal organization here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.