Louisiana COA Holds in Favor of Tunica-Biloxi Employees in Dram Shop Action

Here is the opinion in Zaunbrecher v. Martin:

17-0932opi

This case previously reached the Supreme Court, and was held pending the decision in Lewis v. Clarke. Materials here and here.

Federal Court Rules in Favor of Pueblo of Santa Ana in Challenge to Alleged Waiver of State Court Immunity in Gaming Compact

Here are the materials in Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Nash (D. N.M.):

52 — Pueblo Motion for Summary J

55 — Judge Nash Response

63 — Pueblo Reply to Judge Nash

65 — Mendoza Response

69 — Pueblo Reply to Mendoza

90 — DCT Order

91 — Judgment

An excerpt:

Specifically, the Court hereby enters a declaration that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq. (“IGRA”) does not authorize an allocation of jurisdiction from tribal court to state court over a personal injury claim arising from the allegedly negligent serving of alcohol on Indian land, and further that the New Mexico State District Court does not have jurisdiction in the case of Gina Mendoza, Michael Hart and Dominic Montoya v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Santa Ana Star Casino, CIV 2007-005711 (“underlying state court litigation”).

Prior federal court order and materials here.

Furry v. Miccosukee Cert Petition: State Dram Shop Actions and Immunity

Here:

Furry Cert Petition

Questions presented:

1. Does Justice Brandeis’ opinion in Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354 (1919) support the concept of tribal sovereign immunity or should that accidental doctrine, questioned in Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (1998), be revised and discarded, at least in the context of tribal alcoholic beverage commercial activities?
2. Do Title 18 U.S.C. § 1161 and Rice v. Rehner, 463 U.S. 713 (1983), exclude tribal alcoholic beverage endeavors from sovereign immunity protection?
3. Does tribal sovereign immunity preclude a suit against an Indian Tribe which has obtained a state liquor license and has operated an alcoholic beverage facility pursuant to that liquor license and in the process has violated state law subjecting a license holder to liability?
Lower court materials here.

11th Circuit Affirms Tribal Immunity from State Law Dram Shop Actions

Here is the opinion. Briefs later, hopefully.

An excerpt:

Furry instead relies on the one state court decision that has gone the other way, Bittle v. Bahe, 192 P.3d 810 (Okla. 2008), where the Oklahoma Supreme Court, over strong dissent, held that § 1161, read together with Rehner, abrogated tribal immunity from any suit based on state laws related to alcohol, including private tort suits. See id. at 823. Notwithstanding the admonition of the United States Supreme Court in Kiowa Tribe that “[t]here is a difference between the right to demand compliance with state laws [26] and the means available to enforce them,” 523 U.S. at 755, the Oklahoma Supreme Court determined that private tort actions to enforce compliance with state liquor laws were permissible because the “state law remedy to recover money damages furthers the legitimate objectives of the state’s liquor laws,” Bittle, 192 P.3d at 823. Although the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s analysis does not bind this Court in any way, we also find it unpersuasive and inconsistent with precedents from this Court and the United States Supreme Court, which have established that congressional abrogation of tribal immunity must be express and unequivocal. Cf. Bittle, 192 P.3d at 829, 833 (Kauger, J., dissenting) (observing that the majority opinion “ignores controlling precedents” and that “[i]t takes a great leap of jurisprudence to determine that Rice v. Rehner is dispositive of the issue of sovereign immunity as it relates to private dram shop actions”).

Federal Court Allows Pueblo of Santa Ana’s Challenge to N.M. Gaming Compact’s Jurisdiction Shifting Provisions to Proceed

Here are the materials in Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Nash (D. N.M.):

Memo Opinion

Party Defendants Motion to Dismiss

Judge Nash Motion to Dismiss

Response to Party Defendants

Response to Judge Nash

Party Defendants Reply

Judge Nash Reply

Here are the materials in the state supreme court decision that is the subject of this challenge.

Florida Dram Shop Action against Miccosukee Tribe Dismissed

Here is the opinion and selected materials from Furry v. Miccosukee Tribe (S.D. Fla.):

DCT Order Dismissing Furry Complaint

Miccosukee Motion to Dismiss Furry Complaint

Furry Response to Motion to Dismiss

Miccosukee Response to Motion for Discovery on Grounds for Sovereign Immunity