California gaming compacts

Federal Court Effectively Orders California Gaming Tribe into Arbitration over Negligence Claim

November 29, 2010Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Saroli v. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (S.D. Cal.):

DCT Order on Agua Caliente Motion to Dismiss

An excerpt:

Section 10.2(d) of the Amended Compact provides that Defendant consents to arbitrate personal injury claims and that Defendant agrees to waive sovereign immunity “in any action brought in federal court … to (1) enforce the parties’ obligation to arbitrate, (2) confirm, correct, modify, or vacate the arbitral award rendered in the arbitration, or (3) enforce or execute a judgment based upon the award.” (Compl., Ex. A at § 10.2(d)(ii).) The parties submit no other documents showing a waiver of sovereign immunity. Based on the plain and express language of Section 10.2(d) above, the Court finds that, at most, Defendant has agreed to a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for claims relating to arbitration. The issue is now whether Plaintiff’s claims fall under this waiver.

California Court of Appeals Dismisses Challenge to Revenue Sharing Provisions of Cal. Compacts

October 28, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Hollywood Park Land Co. v. Golden State Transp. Financing Corp. An excerpt:

Amended Indian gaming compacts approved by the Governor authorize an increase in the number of permissible slot machines on Indian tribal land, in exchange for a substantial payment to the State of California (the State), and authorize the sale of bonds (compact bonds) to provide an income stream to the State in return for the State’s promise to limit who may engage in certain types of gaming within the Indian tribes’ core geographic market.

Defendants, California Infrastructure and Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) and Golden State Transportation Financing Corporation (Golden State), then initiated the sale of such bonds. However, plaintiffs, Hollywood Park Land Company, LLC, Terrence Fancher, MEC Land Holdings (California), Inc., Santa Anita Companies, Inc., Los Alamitos Race Course, and Bay Meadows Main Track Investors, LLC filed a reverse validation action, raising three constitutional challenges to the compact bonds.

Court Denies California Motion for Reconsideration in Compact Dispute with Colusa

August 15, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in the most recent filing by the federal court in Cachil Dehe Band v. Schwarzeneggar (E.D. Cal.):

California Motion for Reconsideration

Colusa Opposition to Motion

California Reply Brief

DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration

The summary judgment materials that are the subject up for reconsideration are here.

Calusa-Picayune-California Gaming Compact Dispute Order

May 8, 2009May 8, 2009Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the 60-page district court opinion in Cachil Dehe Band v. California — Calusa DCT Order — 4-22-09

Here’s the scoresheet:

For the reasons stated above, the court makes the following orders:

(1) Defendants’ motion to dismiss Picayune’s complaint in intervention is DENIED.

(2) With respect to Colusa’s First Claim for Relief in Colusa I, regarding Colusa’s priority in the draw process, defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED, and Colusa’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

(3) With respect to Colusa’s Second Claim for Relief in Colusa I and Picayune’s sole Claim for Relief, regarding the number of gaming devices authorized by the Compact, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and Colusa’s and Picayune’s motions for summary judgment are GRANTED.

Continue reading →