California Tribes Seek Rehearing Or Depublication Of Official Immunity Ruling

Here are the materials:

Petition for Rehearing

Cosentino – Application and Amicus Brief

Here’s a snippet from the petition:

The Opinion effectively holds that the Tribe’s Gaming Commission lacks authority to revoke a gaming license unless it cites to reasons for its actions that are expressly and affirmatively authorized to do so by codified law. That is incorrect as a matter of law. The Opinion also wrongly asserts that tribal sovereign immunity can be overcome by alleging that a tribal official acted in excess of his or her authority and that, upon such allegation, tribal official immunity is subject to an evidentiary weighing and balancing that involves shifting burdens of production and persuasion, similar to California’s law of qualified immunity. Tribal official immunity, however, is an absolute privilege, like the absolute immunity enjoyed by the Justices of this Court.

We previously covered this case here.

 

California Appeals Court Holds Pechanga Casino Officials May Be Sued in Employment Action

Here is the opinion in Cosentino v. Fuller:

Opinion

An excerpt:

For sovereign immunity to apply, the claims against tribal officials must be based on actions the officials took in their  official capacity and within the scope of their official authority. An official’s actions that exceed the scope of his or her authority are not protected. Although the parties do not dispute that as members of the tribe’s gaming commission Defendants had the authority to revoke a gaming license if they received reliable information the licensee no longer satisfied the requirements for obtaining a license or had engaged in conduct that reflected poorly upon the tribe or its gaming activities, the record lacks evidence showing Defendants received any such information about Cosentino or an explanation of why they revoked his gaming license. Cosentino, however, presented evidence supporting his claim Defendants exceeded the scope of their authority by revoking his license without cause and in retaliation against him. Sovereign immunity prevents us from inquiring into the reliability of information Defendants may have relied upon in revoking Cosentino’s license or any other errors they may have made, but it does not prevent inquiry into whether Defendants exceeded their authority by using their official position to intentionally harm Cosentino.

Materials in a related Ninth Circuit matter are here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Attempt to Arbitrate Pechange Tort Claims Statute under IGRA

Here are the briefs in Cosentino v. Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians:

Cosentino Opening Brief

Pechanga Answer Brief

Repky brief TK

Lower court materials (C.D. Cal.):

12-1 Pechanga Motion to Dismiss

13 Cosentino Response

20 DCT Amended Order

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

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.

Boomer v. Tulalip Tribes — Tribal Sovereign Immunity

In Boomer v. Tulalip Tribes, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a slip-and-fall tort action against a tribe on the grounds of sovereign immunity. The court rejected the so-called Dry Creek Lodge exception, as well. The Tulalip Tort Claims Act waives tribal immunity for such claims in tribal court.