Here are the materials in State of California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel (S.D. Cal.):
15-1 Iipay Nation Motion to Dismiss
24 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
TRO stage materials are here.
Here are the materials in State of California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel (S.D. Cal.):
15-1 Iipay Nation Motion to Dismiss
24 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
TRO stage materials are here.
Here is the opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California:
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.
Here are the materials so far in State of Kansas v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. Kan.):
Complaint here.
Here is the order in Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington:
2015-05-28 Dkt #57 Denial of Pet for Rehearing En Banc
En banc petition here.
Here is today’s order list.
Petition here.
Here is the order in the case now captioned Jamul Action Committee v. Chaudhuri (E.D. Cal.):
93 DCT Order Denying Injunction
Pleadings and prior orders here.
Here is the opinion in City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa II:
City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa 8th Circuit Decision
An excerpt:
We remand to the district court for its reconsideration of the Band’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion and direct it to consider all of the factors outlined here and in our prior remand order. Accordingly, the district court must give proper weight to the congressional intent that tribes be the primary beneficiaries of Indian gaming as well as other relevant factors we have previously identified. These include the facts that the City was on notice in 2009 of relevant actions and policies of the Gaming Commission and its warning in the 2011 Notice of Violation that the tribe would violate IGRA by making further rent payments to the city. As discussed in our prior City of Duluth opinion, such change in the governing law is also relevant to the question of whether an exceptional circumstance compels a grant of Rule 60(b)(6) relief. City of Duluth, 702 F.3d at 1154-55; see In re Pac. Far E. Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1989).
Briefs are here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.