IGRA – Page 33 – Turtle Talk

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

November 16, 2015November 16, 2015Sarah M Donnelly1 Comment

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.

Seminole Tribe Good Faith Negotiations Complaint

October 28, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Florida (N.D. Fla.):

1 Complaint

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Tribe in $36.2M Compact Dispute

October 26, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is the opinion in Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians v. State of California.

From the court’s syllabus:

Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians was entitled to rescission of the 2004 Amendment to the 1999 Tribal-State Compact governing operation of Class III, or casino-style, gaming on Pauma’s land.

The panel held that the interpretation of a Compact license pool provision in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Cmty. v. Cal., 618 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2010), applied, such that the State of California would be deemed to have misrepresented a material fact as to how many gaming licenses were available when negotiating with Pauma to amend its Compact. The panel held that, unlike a change in judicial interpretation of a statute or law, the doctrine of retroactivity does not apply to contracts. Once there has been a final judicial interpretation of an ambiguous contract provision, that is and has always been the correct interpretation from the document’s inception.

The panel held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Pauma’s misrepresentation claim. The panel held that the district court awarded the proper remedy to Pauma by refunding $36.2 million in overpayments, even though the district court mislabeled the remedy as specific performance, rather than rescission and restitution for a voidable contract. The panel held that this equitable remedy fell within the State’s limited waiver of its sovereign immunity in the Compacts, and thus was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

On cross-appeal, the panel held that Pauma was not entitled to seek redress under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because the State and Pauma actually reached a gaming Compact.

Dissenting, Chief District Judge Jarvey wrote that the State did not commit the tort of misrepresentation by interpreting the Compact differently than a later court decision. He also wrote that, under the language of the Compact, the State did not waive its sovereign immunity with respect to this claim.

Briefs here.