Federal Court Rejects Seneca Challenge to Arbitrators’ Decision

Here are the materials in Seneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York (W.D. N.Y.):

9-2-cross-petition.pdf

10-seneca-reply.pdf

12-ny-reply.pdf

14-dct-order.pdf

Prior post, including petition and arbitrators’ opinions, here.

Seneca Nation Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award Favoring State of New York on Revenue Sharing

Here are the materials in Seneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York (W.D. N.Y.):

1-1 Motion to Vacate

2-3 Final Award

2-4 Partial Final Award

2-5 Washburn Dissent

New Mexico Pueblos Prevail in Revenue Sharing Dispute with State [Free Play]

Here are the materials in Pueblo of Isleta v. Lujan Grisham (D.N.M.):

55 State MSJ

58 Pueblo Response

62 State Reply

67-1 Santa Ana Pueblo et al MSJ

68 Isleta Pueblo et al MSJ

71 State Response to 68

72 State Response to 67

74 Isleta Reply

81 State Motion for Discovery

84 Pueblos Motion for Protective Order

88 State Response to 84

91 Pueblos Reply in Support of 84

125 DCT Order

Complaint here.

Isleta Pueblo Sues New Mexico over Revenue Sharing

Here is the complaint in Pueblo of Isleta v. Martinez (D.N.M.):

Complaint

An excerpt:

The Plaintiffs seek a declaration, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, that the Defendants’ ongoing effort under the 2015 Tribal-State Gaming Compacts with the State of New Mexico (“2015 Compact”) to require each Pueblo to retroactively treat all free play credits used on Gaming Machines as revenue for purposes of calculating State revenue sharing payments under the 2007 Tribal-State Gaming Compacts with the State of New Mexico (“2007 Compact”) violates federal law.

California Appellate Court Orders Cal. Miwok to Pay Costs in Revenue Sharing Matter

Here is the unpublished opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. California Gambling Control Commission (Cal. Ct. App. — 4th Dist.): D068909

An excerpt:

Plaintiff California Valley Miwok Tribe (the Tribe) appeals from the trial court’s award of costs in favor of defendant California Gambling Control Commission (the Commission), following the Commission’s successful summary judgment against the Tribe in its lawsuit seeking an order requiring the Commission to pay over the funds to the Tribe from the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund (RSTF). The Tribe contends that it is protected by tribal sovereign immunity from incurring any obligation to pay costs to the prevailing defendant in a lawsuit that it initiated. As we will explain, the Tribe’s position lacks merit, and accordingly we affirm the award of costs.

Related materials here.

NIGC Prevails in Dispute with City of Duluth over the Fond du Luth Casino

The D.C. District Court granted the NIGC’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the City’s APA challenge to the Fond-du-Luth NOV. Here is the order in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. D.C.):

APA case — District Court Op. (March 31 2015)

An excerpt:

Plaintiff City of Duluth, Minnesota, brings this action challenging a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) that the National Indian Gaming Commission (the “Commission”) issued to the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (the “Band”) with respect to Band’s gaming establishment in the City of Duluth. This action is the latest step in a long saga pertaining to the relationship of the Band and the City of Duluth with respect to gaming, including proceedings in federal court in Minnesota, before the National Indian Gaming Commission, and, now, before this Court as well. In a nutshell, in the NOV, issued July 12, 2011, the National Indian Gaming Commission informed the Band that the 1994 Agreement between the Band and the City of Duluth violated the requirement that the Band have the “sole proprietary interest” in the gaming activity pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. The City of Duluth filed this action pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, claiming that the NOV, first, was arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law, and, second, exceeded Defendants’ authority under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The City of Duluth requests that the NOV be set aside and requests related declaratory and injunctive relief. The Federal Defendants—the Commission and Jonodev Chaudhuri, in his official capacity as Acting Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Commission—argue that the NOV neither was arbitrary or capricious nor exceeded the scope of the Commission’s authority. Before the Court are Plaintiff’s [24] Motion for Summary Judgment and the Federal Defendants’ [26] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s [24] Motion for Summary Judgment and GRANTS the Federal Defendants’ [26] Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court concludes that the NOV was not arbitrary or capricious; that it did not exceed the scope of the Commission’s authority; and that none of the other legal infirmities that Plaintiff identifies are grounds for setting aside the NOV. Accordingly, this case is dismissed in its entirety.

Briefs are here.

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment Briefing in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission

Here:

25 Duluth Motion for Summary J

26 US Cross Motion for Summary J

27-1 Fond du Lac Proposed Amicus Bref

30 Duluth Reply

33 US Reply

The materials on the federal government’s motion to dismiss are here.

Complaint is here.

 

Federal Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in City of Duluth v. NIGC

Here:

26 US Cross Motion for Summary J

Also:

27-1 Fond du Lac Proposed Amicus Brief

The City’s motion is here.

Update in City of Duluth v. NIGC

Here is Duluth’s motion for summary judgment:

25 Duluth Motion for Summary J

Prior materials here.

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss City of Duluth v. NIGC on Standing Grounds

Here is the opinion in City of Duluth v. National Indian Gaming Commission (D. D.C.):

DCT order Denying NIGC Motion to Dismiss

Briefs are here:

Federal Motion to Dismiss

Duluth Opposition

Federal Reply

Complaint here.