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.
gaming
Corrected LDF Brief in Wells Fargo Case: Response to Court Order to Brief Jurisdictional Issue
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.
Gila River Sues Interior over Tohono O’Odham Glendale Casino
Here is the complaint in Gila River Indian Community v. United States (D. Ariz.): Gila River Complaint.
National Indian Gaming Assoc. Amicus Brief in Wells Fargo Appeal
California Files Cert Petition in Rincon Band Gaming Compact Revenue Sharing Case
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.
Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Indictment of Former GTB Gaming CEO
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.
Rand and Light on Obama, Salazar, and Off-Reservation Gaming
Here, from the Gaming Law Review: Obama_Administration_July_2010
Intergovernmental Relations Developing in Cal. as a Result of Gaming
Landmark intergovernmental agreements between California’s small and once impoverished American Indian communities and surrounding cities and counties are playing a crucial role in the growth of the nation’s largest tribal casino market.
But the agreements, intended to mitigate the impact of casinos and economic growth on sovereign Indian land held in trust by the federal government, are not without controversy.
Combined with a recent federal court ruling on the legality of tribes sharing casino revenue with the state, they muddle the future of California’s $7.3bn gambling industry.
“The whole nature of tribal, state and local government relations in California, as far as sharing revenues and mitigating the impacts of gaming, is being thrown up for grabs,” observes Nikki Symington, a consultant for the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, a small community near San Diego. “I don’t know that there is any happy solution down the road.”
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act intended that non-Indian use of gambling revenue be largely restricted to regulatory oversight, problem gambling and other casino impacts.
Many of the fifty-seven California tribes that signed model 1999 tribal-state agreements, or compacts, allowing them to operate casinos voluntarily entered into local intergovernmental agreements and paid into a special distribution fund for traffic, public safety and other local impacts.
There are 107 federally recognize
d tribes in California, more than any state. Until casino gambling most were small, impoverished communities lacking roads, adequate utilities and with no history of government and political relations with the state, counties and municipalities.
“Our communities have been here a long, long time. But for 200 years we have been largely invisible, politically disenfranchised and isolated by poverty and neglect,” Anthony Pico, a citizen of the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians, told a November 2007 meeting of the San Diego Association of Governments. “Gaming changed all that. We are trying to do what it has taken our neighboring counties and municipalities several generations to accomplish.”
Florida Appellate Court Dismisses Personal Injury Claim against Seminole Tribe
Here is the opinion in Seminole Tribe v. Ariz (Fla. App., Dist. 2). An excerpt:
Florida law is clear that the Indian tribes are independent sovereign governments not subject to the civil jurisdiction of the courts of this state. See Houghtaling v. Seminole Tribe of Fla., 611 So.2d 1235 (Fla.1993) (discussing in detail federal and state legislative history and case law of sovereign immunity of Indian tribes). It is also well-established law in Florida that the Tribe is immune from suit brought by any third party in state or federal court without the clear and unequivocal consent of the Tribe or the clear and unequivocal consent of Congress. See Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. McCor, 903 So.2d 353, 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Pursuant to the terms of the Tribal Ordinance, clear and unequivocal consent of the Tribe may only be established through a resolution duly enacted by the Tribal Council of the Seminole Tribe of Florida sitting in legal session. Any resolution purporting to waive sovereign immunity must include the purpose for the waiver and the extent to which the waiver applies. The consent of Congress must be express and may not arise from implication. Id. at 358 (citing Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez,436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978)).
Ninth Circuit Rejects City of Vancouver Challenge to Cowlitz Gaming Ordinance on Standing Grounds
Here is the unpublished opinion in City of Vancouver v. Skibine (h/t Indianz). And the briefs are here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.