Class III Gaming Compact – Page 7

The judgment is reversed. The Governor’s concurrence is invalid under the facts alleged in this case. Plaintiffs have stated a cause of action for a writ of mandate to set the concurrence aside on the ground that it is unsupported by legal authority. The matter is remanded for further proceedings, and the trial court is directed to vacate its order sustaining the demurrers and enter a new order overruling them.

Briefs:

Appellant Brief

California Brief

Reply Brief

Appellant Supplemental Brief

California Supplemental Brief

North Fork Supplemental Brief

Tenth Circuit Briefs in Navajo Nation Challenge to State Court Jurisdiction over Personal Injury Suits at Tribal Casino

October 24, 2016November 7, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs in Navajo Nation v. Dalley:

Navajo Opening Brief

Pueblo of Santa Ana Amicus Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Rejects Challenge to Interior Approval of Buena Vista Rancheria of the Me-Wuk Tribe Gaming Compact

March 18, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in County of Amador v. Jewell (D.D.C.):

76-1 Amador County Motion for Summary J

77 US Response

81 Amador County Reply

83 US Reply

84 DCT Order

An excerpt:

At the center of this dispute is a proposed gaming operation on the Buena Vista Rancheria of the Me-Wuk Tribe located in Amador County, California. In 2000, pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (the “Secretary”), approved a gaming compact between the MeWuk Tribe and the State of California. The gaming compact was later amended in 2004 to provide for an expanded gaming operation. Although it had not challenged the 2000 gaming compact, Plaintiff, Amador County, challenges the Secretary’s approval of the amended compact, claiming that the Buena Vista Rancheria does not qualify as “Indian land”—a requirement under the IGRA.

***

Having reviewed the parties’ submissions, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authority, the Court concludes that: (1) Amador County stipulated that it would treat the Buena Vista Rancheria as a reservation; (2) Amador County is barred from arguing in this litigation that the Rancheria is not a reservation; and, alternatively, (3) the Secretary is authorized to declare that the Rancheria is a reservation for purposes of the IGRA. Therefore, the Court will DENY Amador County’s motion for summary judgment and GRANT the Secretary’s cross-motion. The reasoning for the Court’s decision is set forth below.

Update in Forest County Potawatomi Challenge to Class III Gaming Compact Disapproval

March 15, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Forest County Potawatomi Community v. United States (D.D.C.):

19-1 US Motion to Transfer Venue

20 FCPC Opposition

21 Reply

22-1 Menominee Motion to Intervene

27 FCPC Opposition to Menominee Intervention Motion

31 Menominee Reply

33 DCT Order Denying Motion to Transfer

We posted the complaint way back in early 2015.

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Tribe in $36.2M Compact Dispute

October 26, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is the opinion in Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians v. State of California.

From the court’s syllabus:

Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians was entitled to rescission of the 2004 Amendment to the 1999 Tribal-State Compact governing operation of Class III, or casino-style, gaming on Pauma’s land.

The panel held that the interpretation of a Compact license pool provision in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Cmty. v. Cal., 618 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2010), applied, such that the State of California would be deemed to have misrepresented a material fact as to how many gaming licenses were available when negotiating with Pauma to amend its Compact. The panel held that, unlike a change in judicial interpretation of a statute or law, the doctrine of retroactivity does not apply to contracts. Once there has been a final judicial interpretation of an ambiguous contract provision, that is and has always been the correct interpretation from the document’s inception.

The panel held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Pauma’s misrepresentation claim. The panel held that the district court awarded the proper remedy to Pauma by refunding $36.2 million in overpayments, even though the district court mislabeled the remedy as specific performance, rather than rescission and restitution for a voidable contract. The panel held that this equitable remedy fell within the State’s limited waiver of its sovereign immunity in the Compacts, and thus was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

On cross-appeal, the panel held that Pauma was not entitled to seek redress under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because the State and Pauma actually reached a gaming Compact.

Dissenting, Chief District Judge Jarvey wrote that the State did not commit the tort of misrepresentation by interpreting the Compact differently than a later court decision. He also wrote that, under the language of the Compact, the State did not waive its sovereign immunity with respect to this claim.

Briefs here.