Update in Pinoleville Pomo Nation Gaming & RICO Dispute

Here are the updated materials in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):

178 DCT Order

184 Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment

186 Plaintiffs Response

191 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment

192 Defendants Reply

196 DCT Order

Prior post here.

Case tag here.

Pinoleville Pomo Nation v. JW Gaming Development LLC Cert Petition

Here:

petition-for-a-writ-of-certiorari.pdf

appendix.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

136 JW Gaming Cross Motion

146 Tribal Reply

147 JW Gaming Reply

Prior posts here.

UPDATE:

178 DCT Order

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Here is the unpublished opinion in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James.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Here is the unpublished opinion in In re Pinoville Pomo Nation [Pinoville Gaming Authority v. United States District Court].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:

Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Motion to Stay

Answer to Petition

Opposition to Motion for Stay

Reply

The appeal docs are here.

Ninth Circuit Materials in JW Gaming Development v. James [Pinoleville Pomo Nation]

Here are the briefs:

opening-brief-2.pdf

answer-brief-1.pdf

reply-4.pdf

Lower court materials here.

Oral argument video:

Federal Court Allows Fraud Claims against Tribal Employees to Proceed

Here are the materials in JW Gaming Development LLC v. James (N.D. Cal.):

1-1 Complaint

6 Motion to Dismiss

18 Response

22 Reply

55 DCT Order

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.