intra-tribal dispute

California COA Decides Gaming Revenue Sharing Dispute involving California Valley Miwok Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. California Gambling Control Commission:

D064271

An excerpt:

California Valley Miwok Tribe (the Tribe) appeals following a summary judgment in favor of defendant California Gambling Control Commission (the Commission). In granting summary judgment, the trial court ruled that until the federal Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) indicates, by entering into contract for federal benefits with the Tribe, that an internal tribal dispute about the Tribe’s membership and leadership has been resolved, the Commission is justified in continuing to hold in trust for the Tribe certain funds generated from Indian gaming in California that the Commission is required to distribute to the Tribe on a quarterly basis. As we will explain, we conclude that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Commission, and accordingly we affirm the judgment.

Briefs here:

Appellant Brief

Intervenor Brief

Respondent Brief

Appellant Reply

Ninth Circuit Decides Cloverdale Rancheria v. Jewell

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the unpublished opinion.

Plaintiffs-Appellants are five members of the Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California (“the Tribe”) who seek to compel Defendants-Appellees, the Department of Interior and its officials (“the Department”), to recognize them as the Tribe’s leadership and negotiate self-determination contracts with them. The district court dismissed both of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ complaints for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and lack of standing. We review these dismissals de novo, Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.

Briefs and other materials here.

Federal Court Issues Preliminary Injunction in Picayune Casino Dispute

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

9 McDonald Faction Opposition to TRO

10 Unification Council Response to TRO

25 California Motion for PI

30 Unification Council Response to PI Motion

31 NIGC Materials

33 McDonald Faction Response to PI Motion

42 California Reply in Support of PI Motion

48 DCT Order Granting PI

From the order:

The Court orders that the Tribe, and all if its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons acting under the Tribe’s direction and control, including all  groups currently claiming to constitute the tribal government, are hereby enjoined and  restrained from:

1. Attempting to disturb, modify or otherwise change the circumstances that were in effect at the Casino as of the afternoon of October 8, 2014. This prohibition includes, without limitation, attempting to repossess, or take control of the Casino in whole or in part. Payments in the ordinary course of business, including mandatory fees to the gaming commission actually supervising the Casino’s operations on October 8, 2014, and per capita tribal distributions based upon the Tribe’s membership list as of December 1, 2010, that are made in equal amounts, are not violative of this Injunction. No discretionary payments shall be made to any group claiming to be the duly constituted tribal council or claiming control over tribal matters.

2. Deploying tribal police or other armed personnel of any nature within 1,000 yards from the Casino, the property on which the Casino is located, and tribal properties surrounding the Casino, including the adjacent hotel and nearby tribal offices (collectively, “Tribal Properties”). This prohibition includes weapons of any nature or sort such as, by way of example but not limited to, firearms, tasers, knives, clubs, and batons. The only armed personnel allowed within the Tribal Properties are members of federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies who are acting within the scope of their official duties.

3. Possessing, carrying, displaying, or otherwise having firearms on the Tribal Properties.

4. Removing documents or other property from the Casino, or continuing to possess, or possessing, documents or other property removed from the Casino during and after the morning of October 9, 2014. All such documents or other property that were removed and have not been returned shall be returned immediately.

5. Operating the Casino unless and until it is established before this Court that the public health and safety of Casino patrons, employees, and tribal members can be adequately protected from the violent confrontations and threats of violent confrontation among the tribal groups disputing leadership of the Tribe and control of the Casino. This prohibition shall have no further force and effect if the NIGC issues an order lifting its Closure Order and, within one-half court day thereof, the State does not object to reopening the Casino.

This preliminary injunction will remain in effect until resolution of the case by settlement or judgment or the Court’s further order.

TRO materials are here and here.

Updated Materials in California v. Picayune Rancheria

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the new pleadings in State of California v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (E.D. Cal.):

[0] Response to TRO

[1] Declaration of R. Rosette

[2]Declaration of S. Olson

[4] Declaration of G. Tan

[5] Declaration of K. Frazel

More coming.

Prior post on this case here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in Cloverdale Rancheria v. Interior

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs:

Cloverdale Opening Brief

Cloverdale Amicus Brief

Interior Answer Brief

Cloverdale Reply

Oral argument audio here.

Lower court materials here.

California Sues Chukchansi for Emergency Relief (Updated with Federal Court Closure Order)

Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here is Friday’s complaint in State of California v. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (E.D. Cal.):

1 Complaint

An excerpt:

This action seeks emergency and other appropriate injunctive relief to prevent an imminent threat to the public health and safety. Opposing tribal groups of the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California (Chukchansi) claim to constitute the tribal government and have the right to control the Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino (Casino) located in Madera County, California. Even though the State gives deference to Chukchansi’s sovereignty to resolve its intra-tribal dispute, public health, safety, and welfare have become threatened. Supported by armed security forces, the groups have taken actions to occupy, control, or forcibly enter facilities in, adjacent to, and near the Casino located in Coarsegold, California. This is an imminent threat to the public health and safety of Chukchansi’s members, the Casino’s patrons and employees, and the State’s residents. Therefore, this Court should issue orders to protect the public, including temporarily restraining, and permanently enjoining, attempts to take control, or possession, of the Casino and related or nearby facilities, deploying armed personnel at or near the Casino, and carrying firearms at the Casino and related tribal properties; and, further prohibiting operation of the Casino unless and until it is established before this Court that the public health and safety of Casino patrons, employees, and tribal members can be adequately protected from the violent confrontations and threats of violent confrontation among the tribal factions disputing leadership of the Tribe and control of the Casino.

Update:

2-2 California Motion for TRO

2-3 Declaration

5 DCT Order Granting TRO