Connecticut, Pequot, and Mohegan Allowed to Intervene and Assert Rule 19 Defense in MGM Challenge to Gaming Compacts

Here are the materials so far in MGM Resorts Global Development LLC v. Dept. of Interior (D.D.C.):

16 Interior Motion to Dismiss

24-1 State & Tribal Sovereigns Motion to Intervene

27 MGM Response to Motion to Dismiss

33 Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss

34 MGM Opposition to Motion to Intervene

36 Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene

38 DCT Order Granting Motion to Intervene

We posted the complaint here.

Supreme Court Cert Opposition Briefs in Stockbridge-Munsee Land Claim

Here (thanks to the Supreme Court Project page):

State of New York Brief in Opposition

Oneida Indian Nation Brief in Opposition

The petition is here.

Law Professors Amicus Brief in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. New York

Here.

Previous coverage here.

Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. New York Cert Petition

Here:

11-7-14 Stockbridge-Munsee Cert Petition_(filed)

Questions presented:

In Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), this Court held that courts may not override Congress’ judgment and apply laches to summarily dispose of claims at law filed within a statute of limitations established by Congress, thereby foreclosing the possibility of any form of relief. Equitable remedies may be foreclosed at the litigation’s outset due to a delay in commencing suit only in “extraordinary circumstances,” such as the need to prevent unjust hardship on innocent third parties. Id. at 1978.

The question presented is: Where Petitioner’s claims were filed within the statutory-limitations period established by Congress, did the court of appeals contravene this Court’s
decision in Petrella by invoking delay-based equitable principles to summarily dismiss all of Petitioner’s federal treaty, statutory and common-law claims, including one for money damages as upheld by this Court in County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 470 U.S. 226, 246 (1985)?

Lower court materials here. En banc petition materials here.

Second Circuit Denies En Banc Review in Stockbridge-Munsee Land Claims

Here:

Stockbridge CA2 En Banc Denial

The petition is here.

 

Second Circuit En banc Petition by Stockbridge-Munsee Community

Here:

6-30-14 Petition for Rehearing En Banc

An excerpt:

The panel decision conflicts with the May 19, 2014 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Petrella v.Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 132; 188 L.Ed.2d 979 (2014) (Petrella). Petrella held that courts may not override Congress’ judgment and apply equitable defenses to summarily dispose of claims at law filed within a statute of limitations established by Congress. The panel’s Per Curiam decision ruled that Plaintiff-Appellant Stockbridge-Munsee Community’s (Stockbridge) damages claims, which were filed within the congressionally established limitations period, are barred by the Sherrill equitable defense. Stockbridge-Munsee Cmty. v. New York; Slip Op. at 8, 2014 WL 2782191 (2d Cir. June 20, 2014) (Slip Opinion attached as Appendix). The panel’s failure to follow Petrella warrants en banc review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 35.

Panel materials here.

Second Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Stockbridge-Munsee New York Land Claims

Here is the opinion in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. New York:

Stockbridge-Munsee CA2 Order

Briefs are here.

Second Circuit Briefs in Stockbridge-Munsee Community Lands Claims

Here are the briefs in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of New York:

Stockbridge-Munsee Brief

Oneida Indian Nation Brief

State Brief

Stockbridge-Munsee Reply Brief

Lower court materials are here.

Federal Court Dismisses Stockbridge-Munsee New York Land Claims

Here are the materials in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of New York (N.D. N.Y.):

7-23-13 ORDER dismissing case

Stockbridge-Munsee Amended Complaint with Maps

Oneida NY Motion to Dismiss

State Defendants Motion to Dismiss

County-Muni Defendants Motion to Dismiss

Response to OIN Motion

Response to State Defendants Motion

Joint State Defendants Reply

OIN Reply

Stockbridge-Munsee press release on 7-24-13 decision