Update in Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Miwok

The tribe here is appealing a state court trial decision holding that a jury should determine whether the tribe’s waiver of immunity was “reasonable.” There are other issues as well (for example, the NIGC issued an opinion on the underlying contract that the state trial court disregarded on various grounds). Here are the materials in Sharp Image Gaming v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (Cal. App.):

2009-11-17 Ruling re Motion to Dismiss

2012-10-10 Tribes Opening Brief

Prior post on this case here.

Navajo Nation SCT Issues Immunity Decision

Here is the decision in Navajo Housing Authority v. Johns.

From the court’s syllabus:

In this appeal of the Crownpoint District Court’s denial of NHA’s motion to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity, the Court vacates the denial.  Noting that the issue of NHA’s immunity has returned time and again to the Court, first on the basis of NHA’s codified plan of operations, subsequently on amendments to both NHA’s plan of operations and the Sovereign Immunity Act, the Court finds that NHA had immunity at all times relevant to this action. In reaching its decision, the Court overrules a quartet of cases concerning NHA’s immunity and reestablishes its 1987 opinion in NHA v. Dana as the controlling case.

Opening Seventh Circuit Brief in Challenge to Martin Webb Payday Lending Company’s Forum Selection Clause

Here is the opening brief in Jackson v. Payday Financial LLC:

Jackson Opening Brief

Lower court materials here.

N.Y. Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Contract Claims against Seneca Gaming

Here is the opinion in Sue/Perior Concrete & Paving, Inc. v. Seneca Gaming Corp.:

Sue-Perior Concrete & Paving v Seneca Gaming Corp

Furry v. Miccosukee Cert Petition: State Dram Shop Actions and Immunity

Here:

Furry Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Does Justice Brandeis’ opinion in Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919) support the concept of tribal sovereign immunity or should that accidental doctrine, questioned in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998), be revised and discarded, at least in the context of tribal alcoholic beverage commercial activities?
2. Do Title 18 U.S.C. § 1161 and Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), exclude tribal alcoholic beverage endeavors from sovereign immunity protection?
3. Does tribal sovereign immunity preclude a suit against an Indian Tribe which has obtained a state liquor license and has operated an alcoholic beverage facility pursuant to that liquor license and in the process has violated state law subjecting a license holder to liability?
Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Remands Tribal Gaming Lease Dispute to State Court

Here is the order in Apache Tribe of Oklahoma v. TGS Anadarko (W.D. Okla.):

DCT Order Remanding to State Court

Prior materials were here.

Massachusetts Tribes Move to Intervene in KG Urban v. Patrick Case

Here are those materials:

2012-09-07_(40)_Memo in Support of Motion to Intervene and Exhibits

Mashpee Motion to Intervene [Rule 19 motion]

Contour Spa v. Seminole Tribe Cert Petition

Here:

Contour Spa Cert Petition

Questions Presented:

1. Does Lapides v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, 535 U.S. 613 (2003), provide a basis for finding a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity where an Indian Tribe has expressly waived sovereign immunity, is sued in state court, removes to federal court, and then asserts sovereign immunity based on the Tribe’s concealment of the fact that the Tribe did not comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s lease approval requests?
2. Does Justice Brandeis’ opinion in Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919). support the concept of tribal sovereign immunity or should that accidental doctrine, questioned in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998), be revisited and discarded.
3. Does the Indian Civil Rights Act, Title 25 U.S.C. § 1302(a)(5) and (a)(8) create an implicit cause of action permitting the Tribe to be sued for the taking of property without due process of law?
Lower court materials here.

ICRA Suit (Employment) against Puyallup Dismissed by Federal Court

Here are the materials in Rivera v. Puyallup Tribe of Indians (W.D. Wash.):

DCT Order Dismissing Rivera Complaint

Puyallup Motion to Dismiss

Rivera Response

Puyallup Reply

Ninth Circuit Holds Tribal Workers May Be Sued for Money Damages for Official Actions

You read that right. A troubling case for tribal governments. Here the tribal workers were operating under a public safety cooperative agreement authorized under California statute in which the tribal government expressly reserved immunity.The facts truly are tragic — and bad facts make bad law. I’d say the fact that there’s a dissent is helpful, except our dissenter doesn’t object to the immunity holding.

The opinion in Maxwell v. County of San Diego is here. An excerpt:

In short, our tribal sovereign immunity cases do not question the general rule that individual officers are liable when sued in their individual capacities. We see no reason to give tribal officers broader sovereign immunity protections than state or federal officers given that tribal sovereign immunity is coextensive with other common law immunity principles. See Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58. We therefore hold that sovereign immunity does not bar the suit against the Viejas Fire paramedics as individuals. The Viejas Band is not the real party in interest. The Maxwells have sued the Viejas Fire paramedics in their individual capacities for money damages. Any damages will come from their own pockets, not the tribal treasury. See Alden, 527 U.S. at 757.

This is incredibly glib discarding of Ex parte Young should worry tribal governments everywhere.

Briefs are here:

Maxwell Opening Brief

Viejas Answer Brief

Maxwell Reply