Here is the opinion in Mendoza v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc. News article here.
Along with Oklahoma, New Mexico is one of the few states to allow state law dram shop actions against tribal businesses. And, along with Oklahoma, the reasoning behind the decision is tied to the state-specific jurisdictional scheme created in the tribal gaming compacts.
The New Mexico Court of Appeals last May decided Mendoza v. Tamaya Enterprises, Inc. (opinion link here), holding in part that the New Mexico Indian gaming compact signed by the Pueblo of Santa Ana waived tribal immunity in state court to state-law dram shop actions. The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed to review this case.
As readers will know, we’ve been following multiple state cases involving tribal immunity from state law dram shop actions (e.g., cases involving the Mohegans, and tribes in Washington and Oklahoma; broader discussion here).
As Pechanga reported, one personal injury firm in ABQ suggests that Mendoza “significantly curtailed tribal immunity.” That seems to be an exaggeration — at least when it comes to the common law of tribal immunity — in that it appears likely that the New Mexico compacts include a sufficiently broad waiver. But that remains to be seen as well.
According to Indianz, the Mohegan Tribe settled this matter (VanStaen-Holland v. Lavigne), which was to be argued before the Connecticut Supreme Court today.
Some of the briefs are available, and worth reading:
Turtle Talk 