District of Kansas – Page 3

Kansas Sues NIGC over Quapaw Indian Lands Opinion

March 10, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint in State of Kansas v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. Kan.):

An excerpt:

In this action, the Plaintiffs challenge and seek relief from the November 21, 2014 determination of National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) officials that a 124 acre strip of land in Kansas acquired by the Quapaw Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma (Quapaw or the Tribe) and put into trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for non-gaming purposes qualifies for gaming under the “last recognized reservation exception” to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act’s (IGRA) general prohibition on gaming on land acquired after October 17, 1988. See 25 U.S.C. § 2719(a)(2)(B); 25 C.F.R. § 292.4(b)(2).

Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the November 21, 2014 determination because the strip of land was taken into trust by the Department of Interior for non-gaming purposes and because the NIGC incorrectly applied 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(2)(B), thereby depriving the State of Kansas of the governor’s statutory right to concur in and to veto gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988, pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(A)

Federal Court Dismisses Slip-and-Fall Action against Wyandotte Casino in Kansas

October 9, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Johnson v. Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma (D. Kan.):

7 Wyandotte Motion to Dismiss

12 Johnson Response

15 Wyandotte Reply

19 DCT Order

An excerpt:

Plaintiff brings this personal injury action against the Wyandotte Nation for injuries she sustained when she fell down a flight of stairs at the 7th Street Casino, which is located on land held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Wyandotte Nation. This matter comes before the Court on defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6). Defendant argues that the Court must dismiss plaintiff’s lawsuit because defendant, a federally recognized Indian tribe, is immune from unconsented suit and, therefore, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).1 After considering the arguments made by both parties, the Court grants defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

Kickapoo Water Rights Claim Fails

December 30, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas v. Black (D. Kan.):

248 Watershed District Motion for Summary J

291 Kickapoo Motion for Summary J

301 DCT Order

An excerpt:

As is evidenced by the briefing, this case has a long and complex factual background. However, the facts material to the pending motions are few and uncontroverted. The Kickapoo Indian Reservation (“Reservation”) lies almost entirely within the District’s boundaries. The Tribe and the District entered into the Watershed Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Upper Delaware and Tributaries Watershed (“Agreement”) in 1994 to serve as co-sponsors of a project aimed to carry out works of improvement for soil conservation and for other purposes, including flood prevention. The parties agreed to co-sponsor the project after failed attempts by each party to sponsor the project on its own. The parties reached the Agreement following a procedure established by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Soil Conservation Service (“SCS”), now known as the National Resource Conservation Service, under what is referred to as P.L. 83–566 (the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq.). Many years of planning and negotiation by both parties and numerous other contractors, government officials, and agencies preceded the Agreement. In addition to twenty floodwater retarding dams and other various improvements, the Agreement included plans for a multipurpose dam with recreational facilities, otherwise known as the “Plum Creek Project.”

On multiple occasions, the Tribe asked the District to exercise its power of eminent domain to condemn non-Indian-owned land for the Plum Creek Project that the Tribe had been unable to acquire on its own. The District declined the Tribe’s request each time. The Tribe filed this water rights action on June 14, 2006, seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and specific performance. In essence, the Tribe claims that the Agreement is a binding contract that obligates the District to condemn 1,200 acres of land on the Tribe’s behalf to build the Plum Creek Project.

The parties agree that the issue before the court in both summary judgment motions boils down to this: Does the Agreement unambiguously require the District to exercise its eminent domain powers on the Tribe’s behalf to acquire non-Indian land necessary to build the Plum Creek Project? The Tribe contends the answer is yes, and the District argues that the answer is no.

Prior posts here and here.

Federal Court Decides Cross-Motions for Summary J in Wyandotte Nation v. Salazar

April 11, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials:

DCT Order on Cross Motions

Wyandotte Motion for Summary J

Interior Opposition

Kansas Opposition

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Wyandotte Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe (“the Nation”), filed this lawsuit against Kenneth Salazar, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (“the Secretary”), seeking an order from this Court compelling the Secretary to accept title to certain land and hold it in trust for the Nation’s benefit, as specifically required by Public Law 98-602, 98 Stat. 3149 (1984) (“P.L. 98-602”), under both the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706(a) and the Mandamus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. The State of Kansas (“the State”) was permitted to intervene as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a).1 This matter is before the Court on the Nation’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 60) and the Secretary and State’s cross-motions for summary judgment (Docs. 66, 69). The Court heard oral arguments on March 14, 2013, at which time the Secretary was directed to supplement the Administrative Record and the matter was taken under advisement. For the reasons explained in detail below, the Court denies the Nation’s motion and grants in part and denies in part the Secretary and the State’s cross- motions, retaining jurisdiction over the case until the agency issues a final decision on the Nation’s pending land-into-trust application.

Prior posts on this case here, here, and here.

FTCA Claim against US for Alleged Negligence of Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas Employee Dismissed on Jurisdiction Grounds

March 14, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Dinger v. United States (D. Kan.):

DCT Order Granting USA Motion

USA Motion to Dismiss

Dinger Opposition

USA Reply

An excerpt:

Plaintiff Tammy Dinger brought suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that her husband’s death was the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by a tribal employee who was allegedly working under a grant from the federal government at the time of the accident. Defendant United States of America requests that the Court either dismiss the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. 8), or in the alternative, grant summary judgment in its favor (Doc. 15).