Indian gaming

California COA Affirms $49M Judgment in Inter-Tribal Contract Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Yavapai-Apache Nation v. La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians:

Yavapai-Apache Nation v La Posta Band

Briefs:

Yavapai-Apache Nation Reply Brief

La Posta Opening Brief

Yavapai-Apache Nation Response Brief

La Posta Reply Brief

An excerpt:

This appeal arises from a contract dispute between two Indian tribes: Yavapai Apache Nation (YAN) and La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians (La Posta). YAN is an Arizona-based tribe with about 2,400 members, and La Posta is a California based tribe with about 15 adult members. In the parties’ contract, La Posta promised to repay more than $23 million to YAN for funds borrowed to develop a casino that later proved unsuccessful. The parties waived sovereign immunity in their contract.

***

In the final judgment, the superior court awarded YAN $48,893,407.97 on its contract claim, and entered judgment against La Posta on its declaratory relief claim based on the court’s finding this claim was not ripe. Both parties filed appeals from this judgment. For the reasons explained, we find no reversible error and affirm the judgment in its entirety.

Spokane County Sues to Stop Spokane Tribe Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Spokane County v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Wash.):

Complaint

An excerpt:

Spokane County, Washington (“County”) brings this action seeking review of and relief from a June 15, 2015 decision by the Department of the Interior (“Department”) approving a proposal by the Spokane Tribe of Indians to build its third casino directly below Fairchild Air Force Base’s (“Fairchild AFB”) VFR traffic pattern for Fairchild’s primary runway. The Department’s determination that this casino will not be detrimental to the surrounding community violates federal statutes governing such decisions, overrides the opposition of the vast majority of officials elected to represent the interests of the surrounding community, is belied by the record evidence and long-standing agency policy, and defies basic common sense.

Tribal Appellate Court Affirms Immunity Defense in Comanche Gaming Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in CDST-Gaming v. Comanche Nation (Ct. Indian Appeals):

CDST Gaming v. Comanche Nation

Lower court decision here.

Related posts here, here, and here.

Dakota Gaming Patron’s Privacy Act Complaint Dismissed

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Block v. Dakota Nation Gaming Commission (D.S.D.):

1 Complaint

5 Motion to Dismiss

9 DCT Order

Stockbridge-Munsee Sues Wisconsin and Ho-Chunk Over Gaming

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials so far in Stockbridge-Munsee Community v. State of Wisconsin (W.D. Wisc.):

FINAL COMPLAINT

FINAL HOLSEY AFF

FINAL MEMORANDUM

FINAL Motion for PI

FINAL STATEMENT OF FACTS

Kalispel Sues Interior over Spokane Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the complaint in Kalispel Tribe of Indians v. Dept. of Interior (E.D. Wash.):

1 Complaint

First Circuit Rules in Favor of Aquinnah in Gaming Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah).

Briefs here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Guidiville Rancheria v. United States

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the briefs:

Guidiville Rancheria Opening Brief

City of Richmond Brief

Reply

Oral argument video here.

Lower court materials here.

Shane Plumer on Turning Gaming Dollars Into Non-Gaming Revenue

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Shane Plumer has published “Turning Gaming Dollars Into Non-Gaming Revenue: Hedging For The Seventh Generation” in the Journal of Law and Inequality’s Sua Sponte.

Here is the abstract:

There are four levels of diversification that tribes engage in: level one consists of amenities to gaming facilities; level two consists of tourist-reliant non-gaming businesses; level three involves on-reservation businesses that export products off the reservation; and the most sophisticated level involves acquiring off-reservation businesses in order to access more diverse markets. Historically, tribal economic development has been hindered by lack of access to capital markets, limitations placed on federal funding, federal Indian policy that requires creation of jobs on the reservation, information asymmetry and conservative investment strategies that are holdovers from how federal agencies invested tribal funds. This article provides a roadmap for cutting-edge tribal economic development that focuses on off-reservation investment by mobilizing investment banks and private equity in order to diversify tribal investment portfolios.

Second Circuit Decides Cayuga Nation v. Tanner

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion.

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs‐Appellants, the Cayuga Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and individual officers, employees, and representatives of the Cayuga Nation, filed this action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (David N. Hurd, Judge) against the Village of Union Springs, the Board of Trustees of the Village, and individual Village officials, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs contend that the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701‐2721, preempts the defendants’ efforts to enforce a local anti‐gambling ordinance against a gaming facility located on land owned by Cayuga Nation.

The district court dismissed the complaint, holding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because it could not determine, in light of an ongoing leadership dispute within Cayuga Nation, whether the lawsuit was authorized as a matter of tribal law. Following a motion for reconsideration, the district court additionally held that the individual plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue in their own right.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argue that the district court had jurisdiction because the Bureau of Indian Affairs had recognized Clint Halftown, who initiated this suit, as the Cayuga Nation’s “federal representative,” thereby relieving the court of the need to resolve questions of tribal law, and because the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the anti‐gaming ordinance. We agree and therefore VACATE the district court’s order dismissing the complaint and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Briefs here.