FORT INDEPENDENCE INDIAN COMMUNITY v. California

Good Law
679 F. Supp. 2d 1159·2009 WL 5206797·2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119692
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaDecember 24, 2009Civ. S-08-432 LKK/KJMCalifornia15,092 words

Opinion

Opinion

Karlton, J.

ORDER

Plaintiff Fort Independence Indian Community, a federally recognized tribe, brings suit against the State of California and associated officials (collectively, the “State”). The Tribe’s sole remaining claim alleges that the State has violated its obligation to negotiate in good faith regarding a Tribal-State gaming compact. In particular, the Tribe argues that the State has improperly insisted upon a revenue sharing agreement. Although the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is apparently hostile to such agreements, they have become common. These agreements have also been upheld by the Department of the Interior, the agency that administers this aspect of the IGRA.

The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. The court resolves the matters on the papers, including supplemental briefing, and after oral argument. Questions of material fact remain, but the court grants summary adjudication/partial summary judgment as to several issues.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Statutory Background

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., divides gaming into three classes. Class III gaming, which includes slot machines and similar devices, is at issue in this case. Under…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.