Currently pending in district court is a motion for summary judgment by the Pauma Band in their long-running dispute with the State of California over revenue sharing and their compact terms.
Here are the most recent materials:
Pauma Band Motion for Summary J
This case is on remand from the Ninth Circuit (materials here).
Here is the decision in Martinez v. Brown (S.D. Cal.): Martinez v Brown
Interesting case, involving the right of a tribe to evict non-Indians from tribal lands. The complaint, with a tribal court opinion attachment, is here: Rogers-Dial Complaint & Motion for PI
Here are the materials in Quechan Indian Tribe v. DOI (S.D. Cal.):
Order Granting Preliminary Injunction
Here are the materials in Saroli v. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (S.D. Cal.):
Agua Caliente Motion to Dismiss
Saroli Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
DCT Order on Agua Caliente Motion to Dismiss
An excerpt:
Section 10.2(d) of the Amended Compact provides that Defendant consents to arbitrate personal injury claims and that Defendant agrees to waive sovereign immunity “in any action brought in federal court … to (1) enforce the parties’ obligation to arbitrate, (2) confirm, correct, modify, or vacate the arbitral award rendered in the arbitration, or (3) enforce or execute a judgment based upon the award.” (Compl., Ex. A at § 10.2(d)(ii).) The parties submit no other documents showing a waiver of sovereign immunity. Based on the plain and express language of Section 10.2(d) above, the Court finds that, at most, Defendant has agreed to a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for claims relating to arbitration. The issue is now whether Plaintiff’s claims fall under this waiver.
Here is the opinion in Rincon Mushroom Corp. v. Mazzetti (S.D. Cal.):
And this pleading, which seems to say it all: Rincon Band Motion to Dismiss
Here is the opinion in Liska v. Macarro (S.D. Cal.): DCT Order Dismissing Liska Complaint.
A quote:
On October 14, 2008, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed the original petition, captioned “Complaint [for] Writ of Habeas Corpus.” (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner alleged he is a descendant of the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians (the “Tribe”), but not an enrolled member of the Tribe. The Tribe currently has in place a moratorium on enrolling new members. The petition named as respondents Tribe members Mark Macarro, Mark Calac, Mar Luker, John Magee, Andrew Masiiel, Donna Baron, and Butch Murphy. Petitioner alleged Respondents illegally banished Petitioner from the Tribe without a hearing or due process, in violation of the American Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 (“ICRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1301, 1302, and 1303. According to Petitioner, he is entitled to be recognized as a member of the Tribe, share in the Tribe’s trust proceeds, and enter the reservation to visit his father’s grave.
Here is the more developed case.
This one is San Pasqual Band v. California (S.D. Cal.). Here are the materials:
DCT Order Granting San Pasqual Motion for Summary J
San Pasqual Band Motion for Summary Judgment
The best part about this and related cases (Colusa and Rincon) is this comment from the news (via Pechanaga):
Last week, the Rincon Indian band won a lawsuit in which a second San Diego judge ruled the number of slots allowed statewide under the 1999 deal should be nearly 56,000.
The confusion stems from the fact that the cap number was expressed through a formula open to interpretation.
The actual number of slots in the state is much higher, over 60,000, because some tribes have made new deals for more machines.
Here are the materials in Rincon Band v. Schwarzeneggar:
DCT Order Granting Additional Slot Machines
Rincon Motion for Partial Summary J
Here are the materials for this case, Jaramillo v. Harrah’s (Rincon Casino & Resort):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.