Here are the materials in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri (E.D. Cal.):
127-1 Federal Motion to Dismiss
133-1 JAC Motion for Summary J
This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit; those materials here.
Here are the materials in Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri (E.D. Cal.):
127-1 Federal Motion to Dismiss
133-1 JAC Motion for Summary J
This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit; those materials here.
Here are the materials in the matter of Navajo Nation et al v. Marsh et al, 15-cv-00799 (D. N.M. 2016):
Doc. 12 – Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 13 – Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 17 – McNeal Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 19 – Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 21 – Memorandum Opinion and Order
Link to previously posted complaint here.
Here is the opinion in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Schinnler (Fla. Ct. App.).
An excerpt:
Here, the tribe established that no resolution, ordinance or compact including a waiver of immunity was enforceable in 2009 when the plaintiff’s claim arose. The resolution (No. C–195–06) passed by the Tribal Council authorized the tribe to enter into the 2007 compact. While the 2007 compact provided a limited waiver of immunity, our supreme court held the compact invalid. Crist, 999 So.2d at 616. The tribe also provided an affidavit attesting that no waiver of sovereign immunity was in effect when the claim arose. The plaintiff did not rebut this affidavit, nor could she have done so.
There is no factual dispute. The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it denied the tribe’s motion to dismiss. This harm is irreparable if immunity is not given its intended effect.
From mLive.com:
The Gun Lake Tribe of Pottawatomi Indians and the state of Michigan have agreed to split $21.7 million as a “partial settlement” of a dispute over the Michigan Lottery’s creation of online ticket sales and lottery terminals in social clubs.
Here are the pleadings in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida (N.D. Fla.):
37 Seminole Motion for Summary J
38 Florida Motion for Summary J
Motion to dismiss stage pleadings here.
Here are the materials and documents in the matter of Butte County, CA v. Chadhouri et al, 08-cv-00519 (D.C. July 15, 2016):
Doc. 125 – United States’ Reply in Support of its Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
Doc. 128 – Memorandum-Decision and Order
Link to previous coverage here.
Here are the materials in MGM Resorts International Global Gaming Development, LLC v. Malloy et al, 15-cv-01182 (Jun. 23, 2016):
Doc. 35 – First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
Doc. 44-1 – Memorandum of Law In Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
Doc. 47 – MGM’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
Doc. 48 – Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint
Doc. 55 – Ruling on Motion to Dismiss
MGM filed its leave to appeal that day.
Link to previous coverage of original complaint here.
Here is the opinion in Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians.
An excerpt:
The indenture and note between the Bank and the Tribe were secured by a perfected security interest in the DAR, after being deposited into the Tribe’s custodial account with the Bank. The indenture agreement at issue here did not confer any authority, control, or responsibility to the bondholder or the Bank for the conduct of any gaming activity. It merely provided the Bank and the bondholder with a security interest in a specific bank account. It did not and could not control what was deposited into that custodial account. A contract creating a security interest in a custodial account does not convey authority or responsibility for the conduct of any gaming activity. Therefore, it does not violate the sole proprietary interest rule.
Only brief I’ve found: Wells Fargo’s Reply brief
You must be logged in to post a comment.