Here are the updated materials in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):
184 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment
191 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment
Prior post here.
Case tag here.
Pinoleville Pomo Nation
Pinoleville Pomo Nation v. JW Gaming Development LLC Cert Petition
Here:
petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari.pdf
Question presented:
Whether an Indian tribe’s governing body can be stripped of its sovereign immunity from suit for actions taken by its members in their official capacities, as long as a plaintiff merely names the members individually and those officials will be bound by any judgment entered.
Lower court materials here.
Summary Judgment Pleadings in Pinoleville Pomo Nation Gaming Dispute
Here are the materials in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):
129 Tribal Motion for Summary J
Prior posts here.
UPDATE:
Ninth Circuit Confirms Pineoleville Pomo Nation’s Officials Face Potential Individual Liability under RICO
Here is the unpublished opinion in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James.
Materials here.
Pinoville Pomo Nation Petition to Ninth Circuit to Halt Discovery Pending Appeal Fails
Here is the unpublished opinion in In re Pinoville Pomo Nation [Pinoville Gaming Authority v. United States District Court].
Here are the briefs:
The appeal docs are here.
Ninth Circuit Materials in JW Gaming Development v. James [Pinoleville Pomo Nation]
Federal Court Allows Fraud Claims against Tribal Employees to Proceed
Here are the materials in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):
Commentary on Pinoleville Compact Denial
Here is the denial letter — Pinoleville denial.
And more commentary from Lance Boldrey:
Interior corrected the fundamental mistake from last year’s Upper Lake letter, in which they suggested that the number of machines a state might “allow” a tribe via compacting could somehow support revenue sharing. The Department has now returned to the position articulated in a letter to Forest County Potawatomi some years ago that the ordinary elements of a compact, such as number of machines, types of games, hours of operation, etc, cannot support revenue sharing with a state. Rather, a state must confer a substantial benefit that it was not otherwise obligated to negotiate.
