Federal Court Issues Stipulated Injunction in California v. Paskenta Band

Here:

30 DCT Order Granting Injunction

An excerpt:

On July 7, 2014, the court was prepared to hear arguments regarding the entry of a preliminary injunction and whether the court should enter a broader injunction than  requested by plaintiff with respect to class III gaming activity on Indian lands of the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians. At the beginning of the hearing, the parties informed the court they had reached a stipulation to entry of a preliminary injunction in substantially the same form as the temporary restraining order entered in this action on June 18, 2014. The parties also advised that upon entry of the preliminary injunction order, they agreed to a stay of all further litigation pending a status conference in October 2014.

Materials here, here, and here.

Federal Court Finds Jurisdiction in Tribal Dispute with Massachusetts over Regulation of Gaming on Martha Vineyard

Here are the materials so far in Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (D. Mass.):

1 Notice of Removal

18 Massachusetts Motion to Remand

21 Opposition to Motion to Remand

25-1 Massachusetts Reply

31 DCT Order

An excerpt:

This lawsuit involves a dispute between the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and a federally recognized Indian tribe as to who has regulatory jurisdiction over civil gaming on Indian lands on Martha’s Vineyard. The Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe and related entities have taken steps to commence commercial gaming operations on tribal lands without a license from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts contends that by doing so, the Tribe violated a 1983 settlement agreement that subject the lands in question to state civil and criminal jurisdiction. Count 1 of the complaint alleges breach of contract, and Count 2 seeks a declaratory judgment.

The Commonwealth filed suit in state court on December 2, 2013. On December 30, 2013, defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal-question and supplemental jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1367. The Commonwealth has moved to remand the matter to state court. For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be denied.

More Filings in California v. Paskenta Band

Here are additional filings in State of California v. Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians (E.D. Cal.):

22 – Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians’ Third Party Complaint

23 – Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians’ Supplemental Briefing in Support of Enjoining Class II Gaming Activity

23-1 – Second Declaration of Vice Chairman David Swearinger

24 – Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary Injunction and Opposition to Enjoining Class II Gaming Activity

26 – Opposition to Supplemental Brief Regarding Expansion of Existing Injunctive Relief

26-1 – Declaration of Andrew Freeman Re Opposition to Supplemental Brief Regarding Expansion of Existing Injunctive Relief

26-2 – Declaration of Bob Cloud Re Opposition to Supplemental Brief Regarding Expansion of Existing Injunctive Relief

Prior posts here and here.

 

Federal Court Issues TRO in Paskenta Leadership Dispute to Prevent Disturbance of Gaming Operations

Here are the updated materials in State of California v. Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians (E.D. Cal.):

8 Response to Motion for TRO

12 Supplemental Authority

13 Supplemental Authority

14 Supplemental Authority

18 DCT Order Granting TRO

An excerpt:

Based upon the forgoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and good cause appearing, it is hereby ordered that the State’s motion for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED without requiring the State to post security, and that the Tribe, and all of its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and all persons acting under the Tribe’s direction and control, including both factions or groups currently claiming to constitute the tribal government, are hereby ENJOINED AND RESTRAINED from:

1. Attempting to disturb, modify or otherwise change the circumstances currently in effect with respect to operation of the Rolling Hills Casino in Corning, California.

2. Deploying any armed personnel of any nature within 100 yards from the Casino, the property on which the Casino is located, and tribal properties surrounding the Casino including the nearby hotels, gas station, and RV park (collectively, Tribal Properties).

3. Possessing, carrying, displaying, or otherwise having firearms on the Tribal Properties. This order will remain in effect until 6 p.m. on July 2, 2014 unless modified by the court before then, or extended by the court to continue in effect thereafter. FED. R. CIV. P. 65(b)(2).

At the preliminary injunction hearing on June 30, 2014, the court will entertain further argument regarding whether the court should enter a broader injunction preventing any class III gaming activity on Paskenta lands. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii). Any supplemental briefing advancing this position must be filed by June 23, and any opposition briefing by June 27; no brief shall exceed 20 pages.

Complaint and motion 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

Gaming Panel at Fed Bar 2014

Ray Halbritter, Little Fawn Boland, Jeffrey Nelson, George Skibine

20140410-154312.jpg

Federal Court Dismisses Chukchansi Suit over Missing Bags of Money

Here are the materials in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Tan (E.D. Cal.):

13-1 Ayala Faction Motion to Dismiss

14 Lewis Faction Response to Order to Show Cause

28 DCT Order

Prior posts on this suit are here and here.

Order Approving Oneida/NYS Settlement Agreement and Dismissing Interventions — UPDATED

Here is the order approving the settlement agreement between the Oneida Indian Nation and the State of New York, and dismissing both the Cayuga Nation and Stockbridge-Munsee Community’s motions for intervention.

UPDATE — briefs are here:

280-2 Cayuga Motion to Intervene

288 Oneida Response to CN Motion

289 Interior Response to CN Motion

290 NY Response to CN Motion

293 Cayuga Reply

300 MJ R&R Recommending Grant of CN Motion

303-1 Stockbridge-Munsee Motion to Intervene

312 NY Plaintiffs Objection to R&R

313 Oneida Objection to R&R

319 Settlement and Stipulation

326 NY Plaintiffs Response to SMC Motion

327 Oneida Response to SMC Motion

329 Interior Response to SMC Motion

332 Stockbridge Munsee Reply

344 Interior ROD Amendment

Federal Court Denies TRO to Lewis Faction in Chukchansi Dispute

Here is the order:

11 DCT Order Denying TRO

Complaint and motion are here.

Chukchansi Leadership Dispute Now a “Civil War”

Here.

The February 11 from the BIA is here.

Pleadings in Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Tan (E.D. Cal.):

2014 02 19 Aff of R. Lewis – ENDORSED

2014 02 19 Aff of R. Rosette – ENDORSED

2014 02 19 Complaint – ENDORSED

2014 02 19 Ex Parte App – ENDORSED

2014 02 19 Ex Parte Notice & Motion -ENDORSED

2014 02 19 MPA ISO TRO- ENDORSED