Here are the materials in KG Urban v. Patrick (D. Mass.):
140 Mass Gaming Commission Motion for Summary J
143 KG Urban Motion for Summary J
152 Mass Gaming Commission Opposition
153 Mass Gaming Commission Reply
News coverage here.
Prior posts in this case are here, here, here, and here. First Circuit materials are here.
Here are the updated materials in Luckerman v. Narragansett Indian Tribe (D. R.I.):
18-1 Narragansett Motion for Reconsideration
22 DCT Order Denying Reconsideration
An excerpt:
On August 29, 2013, this Court denied Defendant Narragansett Indian Tribe’s (“Tribe”) motion to dismiss, but stayed adjudication of the case pending tribal exhaustion.1 Now, the Tribe has filed a motion for reconsideration of that decision (ECF No. 18), re-emphasizing the Tribe’s position that its tribal sovereign immunity bars the instant lawsuit, and asking again that the Court dismiss the claims brought by Plaintiff Douglas J. Luckerman. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Earlier, the federal court remanded the case to tribal court for exhaustion purposes, post here. Other lower court materials here and here.
Here is the opinion:
An excerpt:
Because the State is not suing to enjoin a class III gaming activity, but instead a trust submission under MILCSA, § 2710(d)(7)(A)(ii) of IGRA does not abrogate the Tribe’s sovereign immunity, and the district court lacked jurisdiction. The issue of whether class III gaming on the casino property will violate IGRA if the Tribe’s MILCSA trust submission is successful is not ripe for adjudication because it depends on contingent future events that may never occur. The injunction was therefore not properly entered.
Briefs are here.
Lower court materials here.
Here are the materials in California Valley Miwok Tribe v. Jewell (D. D.C.):
56 Federal Motion for Summary J
83 Intervenor CVMT Response to US Motion
87 DCT Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration
88 DCT Order on Cross-Motions for Summary J
An excerpt:
For the reasons discussed below, this Court concludes that the Assistant Secretary erred when he assumed that the Tribe’s membership is limited to five individuals and further assumed that the Tribe is governed by a duly constituted tribal council, thereby ignoring multiple administrative and court decisions that express concern about the nature of the Tribe’s governance. Therefore, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in so far as it seeks remand of the August 2011 Decision and deny the Federal Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment.
News coverage here.
The order referenced in the article is here:
353 SCT Order Dismissing Counterclaim against Wells Fargo
And materials:
Here are the materials in Magyar v. Kennedy (E.D. Pa.):
31 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Count 1
An excerpt:
Thus, based upon an examination of the Second Amended Complaint and its Exhibits, we determine that Plaintiff has met his burden to convince us that Defendants acted beyond their official capacity and outside the scope of their authority when they terminated Plaintiff’s Agreements and failed to compensate Plaintiff for the services he rendered in June 2012. Accordingly, we conclude that the Second Amended Complaint alleges facts sufficient to persuade us that Defendants are not protected by sovereign immunity in connection with Count One of the Second Amended Complaint.
Here is (Re)Solving the Tribal No-Forum Conundrum: Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community (PDF), published in the Yale Law Journal Online.
The abstract:
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, a dispute over a controversial off-reservation Indian casino, is the latest opportunity for the Supreme Court to address the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity. The Court could hand Michigan a big win by broadly abrogating tribal immunity, and in turn wreak havoc on modern tribal governance. Alternately, the Court could hand Bay Mills a victory by affirming the tribe’s immunity, effectively precluding judicial review of the tribe’s casino project. In this Essay, Professor Matthew L.M. Fletcher argues that neither choice is preferable to a third option that would both advance tribal self-determination and hold tribes accountable to outsiders. The Court could condition tribal immunity in federal or state court on whether the tribe has solved the no-forum problem by providing a tribal forum for the resolution of important disputes.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.