Federal Court Rejects Amended Complaint in Pauma Band Union Dispute; Issues Judgment Favoring Union

Here are the new materials in Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. Unite Here International Union (S.D. Cal.):

44-1 Motion to File Third Amended Complaint

44-2 Proposed Third Amended Complaint

45 Union Opposition

46 State Opposition

47 Reply

48 DCT Order

Prior post here.

State and Union Prevail over Pauma Band over Labor Relations Dispute

Here are the materials in Pauma Band of Luiseño Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. Unite Here International Union (S.D. Cal.):

13 Amended Complaint

14-1 Union MTD

15-1 State MTD

20-1 Motion to File Second Amended Complaint

21 Union Opposition to 20

22 State Opposition to 20

23 Reply in Support of 20

25 Response to 14

26 Response to 15

28 Union Reply in Support of 14

29 State Reply in Support of 15

33 Second Amended Complaint

34-1 Union MTD Second Amended Complaint

36-1 State MTD Second Amended Complaint

37 Response to 34

38 Response to 36

39 Union Reply in Support of 34

40 State Reply in Support of 36

43 DCT Order

Ninth Circuit Orders Arbitration in Dispute Involving Tribe and Labor Union

Here is the unpublished opinion in Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians v. UNITE HERE International Union.


Shingle Springs Opening Brief

United Here Brief

Oral argument video here.

Lower court materials here.

Prior cases here.

Federal Court Orders Shingle Springs Miwok into Arbitration with Labor Union

Here are the materials in Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians v. Unite Here International Union (E.D. Cal) (No. 16-1057):

9 Motion to Dismiss

13 Tribe Opposition

14 Reply

18 DCT Order

And here are the materials in Unite Here International Union v. Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians (E.D. Cal.) (No. 16-384):

20 Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

21 Tribe Opposition

22 Reply

25 DCT Order

New Scholarship on the Sixth Circuit’s NLRB Tribal Jurisdiction Cases

Riley Plumer has published “Overriding Tribal Sovereignty by Applying the National Labor Relations Act to Indian Tribes inSoaring Eagle Casino and Resort v. National Labor Relations Board” in Law & Inequality.


Ninth Circuit Briefs in Casino Pauma v. NLRB


Opening Brief

CNIGA Amicus Brief

Fort Peck Amicus Brief

Appellate Commissioner Order

Casino Pauma Corrected Opening Brief

NLRB Answer Brief


Reply Brief

Administrative materials:

Administrative Law Judges Decision 6-4-2015

Board Decision 3-31-2015

Board Decision 12-3-2015

NLRB Judge Decision 7-18-2016

Casino Pauma Brief in Support of Exceptions 8-4-2014

Answering Brief to Exceptions 9-5-2014

Prior posts here and here.

NLRB Affirms NLRA Violations against Casino Pauma

Here are the materials:

Administrative Law Judges Decision June 4, 2015

Pauma Brief

NLRB Counsel Answer Brief

Board Decision

We posted on this case here.

Pueblo of Isleta v. NLRB Complaint


1 Complaint

An excerpt:

This is an action to protect the sovereignty of the Pueblo of Isleta (“Pueblo”) from infringement by the National Labor Relations Board and its members (collectively the “Board”) in violation of federal law, specifically this Circuit’s clear rule that general federal laws do not apply to a tribal government’s exercise of sovereign authority absent express congressional authorization, and that the NLRA does not contain such express authorization. Dobbs v. Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 600 F.3d 1275, 1283 (10th Cir. 2010). At a hearing to commence on May 5, 2015 the Board intends – unless restrained – to apply the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169, to the Pueblo’s regulation, operation, and management of gaming in the exercise of its inherent sovereign authority and pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, by subjecting the Pueblo to trial on unfair labor practice charges brought under Section 8(a) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(a). The Board is proceeding on behalf of an individual, Shawna Perea (“Perea”), whom the Board alleges was terminated for allegedly engaging in concerted activities protected under Section 7 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 157.