Pueblo of Pojoaque v. State of New Mexico Good Faith Negotiations Complaint

Here:

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

The Pueblo and the State previously negotiated a Class III gaming compact that expired on June 30, 2015. The Pueblo formally requested that the State enter into a compact regarding the Pueblo’s Class III gaming activities on its Indian lands beyond the expiration of the current compact. More than 180 days have expired since the Pueblo made its initial  request. Accordingly, the Pueblo now seeks a determination by this Court that the State has failed to conclude negotiations in good faith. With that determination, the Court has jurisdiction to invoke IGRA’s remedies that will result in a negotiated compact, or submission of last best offers to a mediator (“baseball arbitration”), and/or procedures promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior to govern the Pueblo’s Class III gaming activities.

Hobia Cert Opposition Brief

Here:

Hobia Cert Opp

Cert petition here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission v. State of California

Here:

California Opening Brief

Pauma Answer Brief

California Reply Brief

Pauma Band Reply

Oral argument audio and video.

Lower court materials here.

Materials and Briefs in Challenge to Enterprise Rancheria Casino

Here are the materials in the matter captioned by the court Citizens for a Better Way v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Cal.):

98-1 UAIC Motion for Summary J

99-1 Citizens for a Better Way Motion for Summary J

102-1 Colusa Motion for Summary J

115-1 US Motion to Strike

116-1 US Motion for Summary J

119-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion for Summary J

120-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion to Strike Guerrero Dec

121-1 Enterprise Rancheria Motion to Strike Meister Dec

126 UAIC Opposition to Summary J Motion

127 UAIC Opposition to Motion to Strike

128 Citizens for a Better Way Opposition to Summary J Motion

130 Colusa Opposition to Summary J Motion

131 Colusa Opposition to Motion to Strike

135 US Reply re Motion to Strike

136 Enterprise Rancheria Reply re Summary J Motion

137 Enterprise Rancheria Reply re Motion to Strike Guerrero

138 Enterprise Rancheria Reply re Motion to Strike Meister

158 DCT Order Granting Motions to Strike

Materials in the TRO stage of this litigation are here.

Tenth Circuit Briefs in New Mexico v. Dept. of Interior (Challenge to Part 291 Regs re: Pojoaque Pueblo)

Here are the briefs:

Interior Opening Brief

Pojoaque Opening Brief

New Mexico Brief

Interior Reply Brief

Pojoaque Reply Brief

Lower court materials here.

Update in Cayuga Nation v. Tanner

Here are more materials in the case captioned Cayuga Nation v. Tanner (N.D. N.Y.):

38 DCT Order Denying Unity Council Motion to Intervene

41 Plaintiffs Reply in Support of PI

42 Plaintiffs Response to Tanner Motion to Dismiss

50 DCT Order Dismissing Claims

52-1 Motion for Reconsideration

60 Tanner Opposition

61 Plaintiffs Reply

Apparently, the Halftown faction (the plaintiffs here) is continuing the fight for gaming, while the Unity Council group has been dismissed from the case. We posted materials on this case here.

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss California v. Iipay Nation 

Here are the materials in State of California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel (S.D. Cal.):

15-1 Iipay Nation Motion to Dismiss

18 California Response

19 Iipay Nation Reply

24 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

TRO stage materials are here.

GAO Issues Report Expressing Concern over Regulation of Indian Gaming

Here is “Regulation and Oversight by the Federal Government, States, and Tribes.”

 

Ninth Circuit Sitting En Banc Rules in Favor of Big Lagoon Rancheria in Gaming Dispute with California

Here is the opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California:

10-17803

From the court’s syllabus:

The en banc court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of a tribe that alleged that the State of California had failed to negotiate in good faith for a gaming compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for Class III gaming on a parcel of land taken into trust for the tribe by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Rejecting California’s argument that the tribe lacked standing to compel it to negotiate in good faith under the IGRA, the en banc court held that the State’s argument amounted to an improper collateral attack on the BIA’s decisions to take the parcel of land into trust and to designate the tribe as a federally recognized Indian tribe. The en banc court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in failing to grant a continuance for additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f).

The en banc court dismissed the tribe’s cross-appeal as moot.

Links to oral argument and briefs here.

Government Moves to Dismiss Kansas Challenge to NIGC Indian Lands Opinion re: Quapaw

Here are the materials so far in State of Kansas v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. Kan.):

43 US Motion to Dismiss

Complaint here.