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 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 are the new materials in Tohono O’odham Nation v. Ducey (D. Ariz.):
Here is the unpublished opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. California Gambling Control Commission (Cal. Ct. App. — 4th Dist.): D068909
An excerpt:
Plaintiff California Valley Miwok Tribe (the Tribe) appeals from the trial court’s award of costs in favor of defendant California Gambling Control Commission (the Commission), following the Commission’s successful summary judgment against the Tribe in its lawsuit seeking an order requiring the Commission to pay over the funds to the Tribe from the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF). The Tribe contends that it is protected by tribal sovereign immunity from incurring any obligation to pay costs to the prevailing defendant in a lawsuit that it initiated. As we will explain, the Tribe’s position lacks merit, and accordingly we affirm the award of costs.
Related materials 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
Here are the briefs in Sun v. Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Enterprise:
Reply TK
Lower court materials here.
Here is the opinion in Comanche Nation v. CDST-Gaming I LLC (CIO Southern Plains Region):
Chief Magistrate Judge for the Court of Indian Offenses ruled in favor of the Comanche Nation and against CDST-Gaming I, LLC on cross motions for summary judgment. CDST had sought over $38 million in lost profits for gaming device placements in arbitration, in federal court and then in tribal court for litigation lasting more than a decade.
Here is the complaint in Brownstone LLC v. Big Sandy Rancheria of Western Mono Indians (C.D. Cal.):
Download request for proposals here.
Proposals due June 15, 2016.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.