Federal Court Dismisses Gaming Developer’s Contract Breach Claim Arising from Failed Lansing Casino Proposal

Here are the materials in JLLJ Development LLC v. Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority (W.D. Mich.):

21 Reply

32 DCT Order re Subject Matter Jurisdiction

34 JLLJ Brief re Subject Matter Jurisdiction

35 Kewadin Casinos Brief re Subject Matter Jurisdiction

39 DCT Order

Prior post with earlier briefs here.

D.C. Circuit Briefs in Sault Tribe Mandatory Trust Land Acquisition Dispute

Here are the briefs (so far) in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Bernhardt:

US Opening Brief

Nottawaseppi Huron Band Potawatomi + Saginaw Chippewa Brief

Detroit Casinos Brief

Sault Tribe Brief

Law Prof Amicus Brief

Detroit Casinos Reply

Joint Tribal Reply

US Reply

Lower court materials here.

Casino Development Firm Sues Sault Tribe over Lansing and Wayne County Gaming Proposals [updates]

Here is the complaint in JLLJ Development LLC v. Kewadin Casinos Gaming Authority (W.D. Mich.):

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Update:

14-1 Gaming Authority Motion to Dismiss

19 Response

Sault Tribe Prevails over Interior over Interpretation of Mandatory Trust Land Acquisition Statute

Here is the opinion in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):

opinion-1.pdf

Case tag here.

26indianclcommndec538.pdf

Sault Tribe Moves for Summary Judgment in Its Off-Rez Fee to Trust Claim

Here are the pleadings in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):

43 Sault Tribe MSJ

45 Detroit Casinos MSJ

48 NHBP MSJ50 SCIT MSJ

54 Interior MSJ

56 Sault Tribe Reply

60 Detroit Casinos Reply

61 SCIT Reply

62 Interior Reply

63 NHBP Reply

Case tag here.

Tribes and Detroit Casinos Allowed to Intervene in Sault Tribe Suit over Lansing and Wayne County Off-Rez Gaming Applications

Here are the materials so far in Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Bernhardt (D.D.C.):

1 Complaint

1-1 Solicitor Opinion on Bay Mills

1-2 Wayne County Application

1-3 Lansing Application

1-4 Supplemental Materials

1-5 Jan 2017 Interior Letter

1-6 July 2017 Interior Decision

11 Answer

16-1 Saginaw Chippewa Motion to Intervene

18-1 Detroit Casinos Motion to Intervene

20 Nottawaseppi Huron Band Motion to Intervene

28 Sault Tribe Opposition to Intervention Motions

29 Federal Opposition to Detroit Casinos Motion to Intervene

31 Saginaw Chippewa Reply in Support of 16

32 Detroit Casinos Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene

33 NHBPI Reply in Support of Motion to Intervene

35 DCT Order

Prior posts on the Lansing/Wayne County casino proposals are here.

“Sault Tribe’s trust land application denied for Lansing casino”

Here.

If anyone has the denial letter, please send it along.

Here it is. And here:

2017-07-24 DOI Cason ltr to Sault Ste. Marie denying mandatory trust acqn

Sault Tribe Motion to Dismiss Michigan Gaming Suit

Here are the new materials in the case captioned State of Michigan v. Payment (W.D. Mich.):

2015-03-20 Brief in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

2015-03-20 Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint

71 Michigan Response to Motion to Dismiss

72 Sault Tribe Reply

The state’s amended complaint is here.

State of Michigan Sues Sault Tribe Officials–Amended Complaint with Exhibits

Amended Complaint

2Exhibit A (Letter from DOI)

Exhibit B (letter from Gov. Snyder to Chairman Eitrem)

Exhibit C (Sault Tribe Submission for Mandatory Fee-to-Trust Acquisition)

Exhibit D (Same, for the Sibley Parcel)

Exhibit E (Sault Tribe approval of development agreement with Lansing, MI)

Exhibit F (Comprehensive Development Agreement between Sault Tribe and Lansing)

Previous coverage of the Lansing casino case here.

Updated Materials in Michigan v. Sault Tribe — State Seeks to Sue Tribal Officials

Here are the materials in State of Michigan v. Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (W.D. Mich.):

49 Renewed Motion to Dismiss

53-1 State Motion for Relief

55 State Response to Motion to Dismiss

57 Soo Tribe Reply

58 Soo Tribe Response to Motion for Relief

60 State Reply

63 DCT Order to Adjourn and Reschedule Oral Argument

Sixth Circuit materials are here.