Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Alabama v. PCI Gaming


Alabama Opening Brief

State of Michigan et al. Amicus Brief

PCI Gaming Brief

US Amicus Brief

USET Amicus Brief

Alabama Reply

Lower court materials here.

Opening Eleventh Circuit Briefs in Alabama v. PCI Gaming


Alabama Opening Brief

State of Michigan et al. Amicus Brief

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Dismisses Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority

Here are the materials in State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority (M.D. Ala.):

1 PBCI Notice of Removal + Exhibits

14 PBCI Motion to Dismiss

17 Alabama Opposition

21 US Amicus Brief

31 Alabama Response to US Amicus

33 Michigan Amicus Brief

35 Poarch Band Reply

43 Order Granting Motion to Dismiss

Federal Court Seeks Briefing on Whether Tribe Waived Immunity by Removing FMLA Claim against Tribe to Federal Court

Here are the materials in Bodi v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (E.D. Cal.):

19 Shingle Springs Motion to Dismiss

31 Bodi Opposition

37 Shingle Springs Reply

40 DCT Order

From the order:

The court is concerned by a predicate question: whether the Tribe waived sovereign immunity by removing the action to federal court.

The issue is an open one in the Ninth Circuit. District courts to have considered it focus their analysis on whether tribal immunity is more analogous to states’ immunity to suit under the Eleventh Amendment, or to foreign nations’ immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 27 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq. Courts taking the former position have found removal to constitute waiver, see, e.g., State Eng’r v. S. Fork Band of the Te–Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone Indians, 66 F. Supp. 2d 1163 (D. Nev. 1999), while  courts taking the latter position have not, see, e.g., Ingrassia v. Chicken Ranch Bingo and  Casino, 676 F. Supp. 2d 953 (E.D. Cal. 2009).

Poarch Band Creek Motion to Dismiss State of Alabama Suit Challenging Tribal Bingo under State Nuisance Theory

Here are the updated materials in State of Alabama v. PCI Gaming Authority (M.D. Ala.):

PBCI Motion to Dismiss

PBCI Notice of Removal + Exhibits

Prior post here.

News coverage here.

Federal Court Rejects Removal of Tribal Court Case; Remands to Tribal Court

Here are the materials in Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Star Trucking (D. Wyo.):

Star Trucking Notice of Removal (includes tribal court complaint)

NAT Motion to Remand

DCT Order Granting Remand

Federal Court Dismisses Casino Slip and Fall, Citing Tribal Court Exhaustion Doctrine

Here are the materials in Girmai v. Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (S.D. Cal.):

Rincon Band Removal Notice

Exhibit 1 — State Ct Complaint

Rincon Band Motion to Dismiss

DCT Order Dismissing Girmai Complaint

Geroux v. Assurant: Federal Court Remand to Tribal Court Reconsideration Denied

Materials here:

DCT Order on Motion to Reconsider

Union Security Insurance Motion for Reconsideration

Geroux Brief in Opposition to Reconsideration

Earlier materials in this interesting case are here.

Removal of Casino Slip and Fall to Federal Court Fails

Here are the materials in Keim v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (S.D. Cal.):

Harrah’s Motion to Dismiss

Harrah’s Response to Order to Show Cause

Keim DCT Order

Federal Court Holds that Tribal Sovereign Immunity Survives Removal to Federal Court

But suggests that the law is unsettled. Here is the opinion in Ingrassia v. Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino (E.D. Cal.): Ingrassia v Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino DCT Order

An excerpt:

At this point, the case law is not absolutely clear whether tribal sovereign immunity is more like the immunity enjoyed by the states or by foreign sovereigns in the circumstance of removal. There are a number of cases in which courts have applied tribal sovereign immunity after removal without addressing the issue. See New York v. Shinnecock Indian Nation, 280 F.Supp.2d 1, 8 (E.D.N.Y.2003);Maynard v. Narrangansett Indian Tribe, 798 F.Supp. 94 (D.R.I.1992); Missouri ex rel. Nixon v. Coeur D’Alene Tribe, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21776 (W.D.Mo. Nov. 19, 1997). In other cases where tribes removed, courts have pierced immunity but not based on waiver from removal. See Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. Arapahoe & Shoshone Tribes, 623 F.2d 682 (10th Cir.1980). These cases, in conjunction withSonoma Falls, leads to the conclusion that removal to federal court does not waive tribal sovereign immunity. However, the issue is not settled and appeal may be fruitful for Plaintiffs.