Southern District of California

Ugly Story: Tribal Law Allegedly Steers Tort Victim to Legal Dead End

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

If this story is true, then this tribe should do the right thing. This bad press for all of Indian Country.

From the San Diego Union Tribune via Pechanga:

During a visit to Sycuan Casino five years ago, Sarah Harris walked into a restroom altercation that she says changed her life.

Now, after what feels like countless hearings on the Indian reservation and in federal court, the 75-year-old former diesel engine mechanic still doesn’t have the $160,000 an arbitrator says she’s due.

Although tribal law says arbitration awards are to be enforced in federal court, the tribe has convinced a federal judge that he has no jurisdiction over the case.

* * *

Sycuan’s lawyers say it wasn’t an intentional dead end.

“The ordinance surely wasn’t written to steer parties to a forum the tribe knew was not going to enforce something; that was not at all the tribe’s intent,” said lawyer Jay Shapiro. “Sometimes documents get written at times when it’s not clear what the law is, or what cases a federal court will hear or not hear.”

I hope this lawyer was misquoted because this statement is awful and wrong. Such an ordinance should be amended immediately, and at a later paragraph in the same article, another tribal lawyer says it will “look at rewording the ordinance.”

The tribe doesn’t want to pay the $160,000 because a tribal arbitrator failed to follow the rules when making the award, which is reasonable in most contexts, but not this one.

The link to the three district court opinions is here.

Removal of Casino Slip and Fall to Federal Court Fails

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Keim v. Harrah’s Operating Co. (S.D. Cal.):

Harrah’s Motion to Dismiss

Harrah’s Response to Order to Show Cause

Keim DCT Order

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

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

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

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

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

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

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