Harris v. Sycuan Band Claim Dismissed a Third and Final Time

Here is that opinion — Harris DCT Order

The two earlier dismissals are here and here.

An excerpt:

On November 26, 2004, Harris was a patron of the Sycuan Casino, a gaming establishment owned and operated by Defendant Sycuan. “At that place and time, plaintiff suffered serious physical injury occasioned by the assaultive conduct of an employee of defendant….” (SAC P 5). “[A]ll claims for damages for physical injuries against defendant … were governed by a ‘Tort Claims Ordinance’ duly enacted by defendant … in June 2004.” (SAC P 6). On March 9, 2005, Harris filed a claim under the Ordinance, and on December 5, 2005, “the Sycuan Gaming Commission certified plaintiff’s claim for processing on the merits, pursuant to Section XI of the Ordinance.” (SAC P 7). After Harris’s claim was denied by the Sycuan Gaming Commission, “Plaintiff duly appealed the substantive denial of her claim pursuant to Section XII(G) of the ordinance, which provides that an appeal from a substantive denial is to be heard by an arbitrator selected by the Sycuan Gaming Commission. The Gaming Commission selected Hon. Gerald Lewis, retired appellate justice, as the arbitrator for plaintiff’s claim…. On September 30, 2008, Judge Lewis issued his decision and award of arbitrator, awarding plaintiff the sum of $ 160,000.”

* * *

The Court concludes that the allegations in the SAC related to the “duty of good faith in the implementation” of the IGRA, the Compact and the Ordinance, are insufficient to confer federal question jurisdiction. In the alternative, the Court concludes that this claim fails to state a claim for relief.

Federal Sovereign Immunity Precludes Suit re: Intertribal Reservation Dispute

The case is Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians v. Salazar (S.D. Cal.). Here are the materials:

Interior Motion to Dismiss

Mesa Grande Opposition

Interior Reply

Mesa Grande v Salazar DCT Order

An excerpt:

This case arises from a dispute between two neighboring Indian tribes over beneficial title to several thousand acres of land in this district. Its origins stretch back over a century. According to the FAC, President Grant issued an executive order setting aside approximately 15,000 acres for Mission Indians in California known as “Santa Ysabel — including Mesa Grande.” In a second order in 1883, President Arthur set aside 120 acres for the “Mesa Grande Indian Reservation.”

* * *

The fact that Plaintiff wants to have the current patents — under which the United States is trustee and Santa Ysabel the beneficiary — canceled and reissued to name the United States as trustee and Plaintiff as beneficiary does not change the analysis. The QTA’s Indian lands exception was intended to allow the United States to carry out its commitments to Indian tribes. Block, 461 U.S. at 283; Mottaz, 476 U.S. at 842-43 and n.6. While issuing a land patent in favor of Plaintiff might promote this goal, it would have the effect of taking land from Santa Ysabel. Plaintiff may be tacitly viewing this action as essentially a dispute between it and Santa Ysabel, with the United States as a disinterested stakeholder. Because Plaintiff cannot proceed against Santa Ysabel, it is therefore left to proceed against the United States. Yet allowing Plaintiff or any other litigant to sue the United States to cancel a land patent issued in favor of an Indian tribe would interfere with the United States’ trust commitment to that tribe, which is the very reason the United States has retained its immunity in such matters.

Federal Court Dismisses “Habeas” Claim against Pechanga Band

Here is the opinion in Liska v. Macarro, where a non-enrolled Pechanga man tried to enter the reservation, was turned away, and sued in federal court (S.D. Cal.) on a habeas theory — Liska v Macarro DCT Order

The materials:

Liska Complaint (Habeas)

Pechanga Motion to Dismiss

Liska Response Brief

Pechanga Reply Brief

Harris Complaint against Sycuan Band Dismissed Again

Once again, the Southern District of California has dismissed a claim against the Sycuan Band of Diegueno Indians under the Federal Arbitration Act — Second DCT Order Dismissing Harris Complaint — she was given leave to amend a third time, though.

First case is here.

No Federal Court Jurisdiction over Tribe under Federal Arbitration Act

The Southern District of California held in Harris v. Sycuan Band of Diegueno Mission Indians that, in a dispute over an arbitration award, the Federal Arbitration Act alone does not confer jurisdiction on federal courts.

Here is the opinion — dct-order-dismissing-harris-complaint

Luna Gaming v. Dorsey & Whitney and Holland & Knight

Here are the materials in this ongoing contract and legal malpractice claim against two major law firms and a few lawyers by an Indian gaming developer. The court just granted partial summary judgment in favor of the firms, with some claims against Dorsey still remaining.

dorsey-whitney-motion-for-summary-judgment

holland-knight-motion-for-summary-judgment

luna-gaming-opposition-to-dorsey-motion

luna-gaming-opposition-to-holland-motion

luna-gaming-v-dorsey-dct-order

Mullins v. Sycuan Band — Tort Claim Dismissed

This can be what happens when you sue someone while represented by an attorney who is not licensed in the proper state bar. The court dismissed the tort claim against the tribe because the attorney wasn’t licensed in California, but noted it would have dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, too.

dct-order-to-show-cause

mullins-v-sycuan-band-dct-order

UNITE HERE v. Pala Band — Federal Court Lacks Jurisdiction over Petition to Enforce Arbitration Award

From the opinion:

On December 11, 2007 Petitioner Unite Here (“Petitioner” or “Unite Here”) filed this petition to confirm an arbitration award against Respondent Pala Band of Mission Indians (“Respondent” or “Pala Band”). (Doc. No. 1.) On April 4, 2008 Respondent moved to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 4.) The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 7.1(d) (1). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion and DISMISSES Petitioner’s petition.

UNITE HERE Petition

Pala Band of Mission Indians motion to dismiss

UNITE HERE Opposition to Motion

Pala Band Reply Brief

DCT Opinion

California Gaming Compact Good Faith Negotiations Case

The case, reported on Indianz (here), is Rincon Band v. Schwarzeneggar. Here are the materials:

first-amended-complaint-rincon-v-schwarzenegger

rincon-motion-for-summary-judgment

california-motion-for-summary-judgment

magistrate-judge-order-rincon-v-schwarzeneggar

All Mission Indian Housing Authority v. Magante

Interesting case where a tribal housing authority brought suit in federal court to evict a resident — they brought suit in federal court because there was no tribal court with jurisdiction. The federal court dismissed the action, recommending the that housing authority talk one its sponsoring tribes start a tribal court.

All Mission Indian Housing Authority Complaint

District Court Order to Show Cause re: Jurisdiction

All Mission Response to Order to Show Cause

District Court’s Amended Order of Dismissal