Mashantucket Pequot Not Required to Disclose Financials to Conn. Town

In an ongoing case where the Mashantucket Pequot Nation is seeking relief from local taxation of slot machines leased by the tribe from non-Indians, the district court rejected the Town of Ledyard’s motion to compel discovery of the Nation’s entire financial records.

dct-order-on-motion-to-compel

News Coverage re: Pokagon Revenue Sharing Dispute

From the South Bend Tribune:

NEW BUFFALO — For the state of Michigan and local municipalities, the tribal Four Winds Casino Resort that opened a year ago in New Buffalo Township has a lot in common with the 1996 Tom Cruise movie “Jerry Maguire.”

Like the movie’s tag line, they’d like the casino to “show me the money.”

Certainly, the casino has been successful, earning an average of $24.4 million a month over its first eight months just on slot-machine revenue. But the state’s 8 percent share of those revenues and the local communities’ 2 percent share that were specified in the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians’ 1998 gaming compact have yet to be paid.And the payments, placed in interest-bearing escrow accounts, are sizable, amounting to $15.6 million for the state and $3.9 million for Berrien County, New Buffalo Township and the city of New Buffalo.

Essentially, the Dowagiac-based tribe’s stance, like that of other Michigan tribes with casinos, is that the Michigan Lottery’s Club Keno game introduced in 2003 violated their compacts’ exclusivity agreements. Two of the tribes sued the state, and although the Pokagons weren’t involved, they chose to withhold payment until the issue was resolved.

Continue reading

Seminole Tribe Per Caps Sufficient to Cover Child Support

The Florida Court of Appeals held that the Seminole tribe’s per capita payments are sufficient to relieve at least one father of child support obligations. Here is the opinion in Cypress v. Jumper.

H/T Falmouth

Nottawaseppi Huron Band Casino Progress

From Indianz:


The Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi Indians is banking on a casino to create new opportunities for the Michigan tribe.

Nearly half of the adult members of the tribe are unemployed. But some are now finding work on the Pine Creek Reservation with the construction of the FireKeepers Casino. “I thank the Creator for the jobs,” Bill Osborn, who was out of work until construction started in May, told The Battle Creek Enquirer. “I think the opportunities in the future are going to be immense.” The $300 million, 236,000 square-foot casino is set to open in the summer of 2009. With $100 million in annual revenue, the tribe plans to improve governmental programs and services for its 850 members. The tribe has already built housing to lure more people back to the reservation. Only about 35 people live there right now. In related news, the tribe is offering a $250 reward for information about the theft of copper wiring from from the casino construction site.

Get the Story:
Tribe: Profits will provide programs for members (The Battle Creek Enquirer 8/17)
Casino will bring change (The Battle Creek Enquirer 8/17)
Neighbors differ on FireKeepers (The Battle Creek Enquirer 8/17)
Tribe reports copper theft at casino (The Battle Creek Enquirer 8/16)

Muskegon County Advisory Vote on LRB Casino Proposal

From the Muskegon Chronicle:

The Muskegon County Board of Commissioners will put a non-binding casino referendum on the countywide Nov. 4 general election ballot.

The vote will be advisory in nature, giving county commissioners the voters’ direction on how to handle issues concerning the Manistee-based Little River Band of Ottawa Indians attempt to place its second casino at the former Great Lakes Downs horse-racing track in Fruitport Township.

The casino advisory vote was proposed by county board Chairman James Derezinski in response to a citizen group forming in light of a previous casino resolution of support by the county board. A group has formed calling for an open debate of the county board’s support for a Fruitport Indian casino after the tribe announced it had purchased the former racetrack last month.

County officials indicated that a public vote for the casino would not insure the tribe the successful development of a Muskegon County Indian casino. Likewise, a vote against the casino will not necessarily prohibit an Indian gambling facility at U.S. 31 and I-96.

The issue of Indian casino development is decided in agreements between the tribe and the state of Michigan and the tribe and the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. The tribe is a sovereign nation under U.S. law.

The specific language for the Indian casino advisory vote will be drawn up by county attorney Theodore Williams. The ballot language is expected to be back before the county board Aug. 26.

BMG v. Chukchansi Casino — Tribal Sovereign Immunity

In the September 12, 2007 order, the district court granted the motion to dismiss as to the Chukchansi Indian Tribe, but left open the question as to whether sovereign immunity applied to the tribe’s economic development entity. In the August 6, 2008 order, the court held the entity was not entitled to sovereign immunity.

Here are the relevant briefs and materials:

amended-complaint

casino-motion-to-dismiss

bmg-resp-to-motion-to-dismiss

bmg-motion-for-reconsideration

LRB Purchases Great Lakes Downs

From Indianz:

The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians purchased a defunct racetrack in Michigan for an undisclosed price.

The tribe wants to open a casino at the site near Muskegon. But official said there is no timetable for development. The tribe operates a casino on its reservation, about 80 miles away. The tribe has a branch office in Muskegon. Another Michigan tribe, the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, has expressed interested in a casino in Muskegon.

Get the Story:
Little River tribe buys Great Lakes Downs with hopes of opening casino (The Muskegon Chronicle 7/17)
Muskegon casino could face same opposition Gun Lake tribe encountered in Wayland Township (The Grand Rapids Press 7/17)
Tribal group wants casino at Great Lakes Downs (WOOD 7/16)
Magna sells Great Lakes Downs (The Thoroughbred Times 7/16)

Pokagon Revenue Sharing Dispute News Coverage

From the Michigan City News-Dispatch:

NEW BUFFALO, Mich. – The slowing economy is not keeping people away from the Four Winds Casino Resort in New Buffalo Township, which collected about $146.6 million in slot machine revenue over the six-month period that ended March 30.

Figures released by the Michigan Gaming Control Board show that the casino, owned by the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, is taking in $24.4 million a month in slot machine revenue.

The monthly total has not changed from the amount estimated using figures covering August and September 2007, the casino’s first two months of operation.

Because it is privately held, the casino does not release figures on its total revenue from its hotel, restaurants, bars, poker and other games.

Continue reading

PPI v. Kempthorne – Denial of Injunction against Seminole Hard Rock Bingo

Here is the order re: PPI’s request for an injunction in light of the Florida House v. Crist ruling. It was denied — once again, my favorite rule — Rule 19 — came into play. [Thanks to T.W.]

ppi-v-kempthorne-july-8-order

PPI’s complaint and request for an injunction is here.

gov-crist-opposition

federal-opposition

ppi-reply

Oregon Court of Appeals Revives Suit on Oregon Gaming Compacts

The case is Dewberry v. Kulongowski, and it involves my favorite court rule, the indispensable party!

From the opinion:

Relators appeal from a judgment dismissing their petition for an alternative writ of mandamus. They argue that the trial court erred in concluding that they failed to establish that they do not have a “plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law,” ORS 34.110, and that the trial court misapplied ORCP 29 and ORS 28.110 in the present proceeding. As explained below, we agree with relators in certain respects, albeit at some points for reasons not advanced by the parties, and conclude that relators did not have a “plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law,” ORS 34.110, in the form of a declaratory judgment action. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.