Up one level
July 28, 2014: People of California v. Miami Nation (Pay Day Loans)
As a sovereign, a federally recognized Indian tribe is immune from suit in both state and federal courts, unless the tribe has waived its immunity or consented to suit or Congress has authorized the action. Both the United States Supreme Court and this Court have observed that an instrumentality or "arm" of a tribe shares in that tribe's immunity. To date neither court has set out a test to determine arm of the tribe status and the lower federal and state courts have developed a variety of conflicting approaches. This case offers an opportunity to clarify the law for California and to establish a persuasive authority for other jurisdictions confronting this difficult issue.
Nov.17, 2014: Ho Jun Sin v. The Normandie Card Club
Breach of employment agreement.
Nov. 3, 2014: Casino Royale Closure Order by State of California
October 6, 2014: Nicole Whitehouse v. Sacramento Casino Royal LLC
Judge Brown’s tentative overruling Casino Royale’s demurrer.
March 3, 2014: People of the State of California v Miami Nation Enterprises - request
PAY DAY LOANS
May 6, 2013: Internet Lending - Alameda Superior Court Order
Paragraph #46: One of the many untoward consequences of this court's decision to dismiss the Tribal entities on immunity grounds is that, by respecting the sovereign immunity claims of those parties, non-immune parties in this case will probably be able to avoid liability by virtue of Plaintiff's need to obtain discovery from the Tribal Entities, which are shielded from any such discovery efforts. Thus in this and other cases, non-tribal parties now have a road-map by which they may concoct schemes to defraud and exploit California residents through the use(and abuse) of tribal entities as the vehicle for perpetrating their schemes and thereby avoid exposure to liability by maintaining the evidence of their misconduct in the records of the immune tribal entities established to front for them. All they need to do is pay the tribal entities for this "services." Such is the current state of the law. If Tribes increasingly elect to exercise their sovereign rights so as to facilitate such schemes, they may eventually see those rights re-defined.
Jan. 24, 2013: Jerry Rape v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians
State of Alabama Amicus Brief before State Supreme Court
The Court Agrees with the State.
Since the Poarch Band of Creek Indians was "not under federal jurisdiction" in 1934, Alabama Courts will treat the activities that occur on Poarch Band property just like activities that occur on any other land within the State's jurisdiction.
Nov. 30, 2012: Bingo Inovations v California Gambling Control Commission
A Sacramento judge has cleared the way for the expansion of bingo games linked statewide by technology that allows charities and churches to increase the pool of players and jackpots, helping raise more money for their causes.
The decision by Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny this week also removes uncertainty for 18 organizations currently operating these “remote caller bingo” games over whether the state would consider renewing their licenses in the future. About 100 others are in line for licenses, officials estimated.
Feb. 13, 2012: PayDay Loans - Colorado Supreme Court Order
For the reasons articulated below, and based on the Colorado Supreme Court’s remand in
Cash Advance v. State ex rel. Suthers, 242 P.3d 1099 (Colo. 2010), and on the hearing I conducted
on November 22, 2011 in accordance with that remand, the motions to dismiss filed on July 20,
2005 and November 16, 2006, by Respondents Miami Nations Enterprises, Inc., and SFS, Inc., are
GRANTED, the administrative subpoenas issued by Applicants to those Respondents are
HEREBY QUASHED, the contempt citations aimed at those Respondents are HEREBY
DISCHARGED and the bench warrants for the arrest of those Respondents’ tribal officers are
Employees vs. Morongo
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR:
(1) RETALIATION BASED ON
DISCRIMINATION [Gov. Code §
(2) DISCRIMINATION [Gov.
Code § 12940(a)];
(3) DISCRIMINATION BASED
ON AGE [Gov. Code § 12940]
(4) DISCRIMINATION BASED
ON SEX [Gov. Code § 12940]
(5) HARASSMENT IN
VIOLATION OF THE FAIR
EMPLOYMENT & HOUSING ACT
(6) WRONGFUL TERMINATION
IN VIOLATION OF THE FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING ACT
(FEHA) AND PUBLIC POLICY
(7) FAILURE TO PREVENT
(8) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(9) NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
(11) BREACH OF CONTRACT
July 27, 2011: Salt and Sea Venture v Robert Ramsey
May 19, 2011: Challenge to Chucky Cheese games
March 3, 2011: Federal Indictment Rackateering
Aritichoke Joes and the Oaks card clubs affected
organized crime ring indicted
April 16, 2010: California Valley Miwoks v. CGCC
March 5, 2010: Angelina Mike (29 Palms Tribe) v. CA Franchise Tax Board
The California Court of Appeal has held that gaming distributions from a tribe to a tribal member who resides on a different reservation from the distributing tribe are taxable by the State. In tax year 2000, Ms. Mike received more than $385,000.00.
Dec. 23, 2009: Coaltion to Save Point Molate v. Contra Costa County BOS
This is a CEQA challenge on the recently approved MOU between the County and the Guidiville Band for the development of an off reservation casino at Point Molate in the Bay Area. The Coalition asserts that the County failed to perform the obligatory environmental process before rushing to sign an agreement for 12+million a year.
Jan. 2009: Kentucky vs. Interactive Gaming - Internet
In September 2008, Kentucky asked the courts to give it control of over 140 gambling-related domains in an attempt to block Kentucky residents from accessing the sites. A number of poker-related domains were named in the request. The first judge in the matter agreed, saying the sites named had to block access to their properties by Kentucky residents within 30 days or forfeit ownership of the domains. A quick and successful appeal stayed the order, leading to the current hearing in from of the State Supreme Court.
Station Casinos List of Creditors
While this is not a court ruling it is a significant list that brings to light the relationship of Station the developer and Attorneys that represent Tribes. This does present at the very least a question of conflict and ethics.
March 2007: San Pasqual v. CGCC
San Pasqual challenges the aggregate total of slot machine licenses in the 1999 tribal state compact as being too low.
Sept. 2007: Cates v. CGCC
The testimony is even more troubling given
Qualset's assertion that the Commission accounts for all Fund contributions by
performing "desk reviews" of all quarterly Fund contribution reports submitted by the
tribes to insure the mathematical accuracy of the reports and the proper application of
contribution rates in the Compact to the numbers reported by the tribes. We are at a
loss to understand exactly how the Commission can possibly "insure the mathematical
accuracy of the reports" when "net win" is a critical element in calculating the
contribution amount, but the Commission purportedly does not know how "net win"
is defined. It appears from the evidence presented that the Commission is simply
verifying the accuracy of mathematical calculations set forth in the reports submitted
by the tribes without confirming that the numbers used to perform the calculations are
those called for by the Compact. Needless to say, the Commission cannot collect and
account for Fund contributions and collect and analyze the reports submitted by the
tribes without knowing the definition of "net win."
Jan. 2007:Agua Caliente Petions for Rehearing
"The majority opinion applies a flawed approach to ascertaining
federal law, ignoring the Supreme Court’s admonition to “defer to
Congress” on tribal suit immunity, Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. at 760,
and creating federal law not endorsed by Congress or the Supreme
Court. This Court should grant this petition to correct those errors."
Request is denied.
Dec. 2006:Agua Caliente v. FPPC ( CA Supreme Crt Ruling)
"In light of evolving United States Supreme Court precedent and the
constitutionally significant importance of the state’s ability to provide a
transparent election process with rules that apply equally to all parties who enter
the electoral fray, we find the FPPC states the better case. Although concepts of
tribal immunity have long-standing application under federal law, the state’s
exercise of state sovereignty in the form of regulating its electoral process is
protected under the Tenth Amendment and the guarantee clause. We therefore
find that the Tribe lacks immunity from suit for its alleged failure to follow the
PRA’s mandated reporting requirements. In so holding, we recognize that our
abrogation of the sovereign immunity doctrine under these facts is narrow and
carefully circumscribed to apply only in cases where California, through its Fair
Political Practices Commission, sues an Indian tribe for violations of state fair
political practice laws. We thus affirm the Court of Appeal judgment and remand for
proceedings consistent with our ruling."
July 29, 2005: California Corporation Commissioner v First California Diversifed Fund - Tom Kelly
Bogus investment plan aimed at acknowledging new tribal governments for the development of urban Indian Casinos.
2004: FPPC v. Santa Rosa Indian Community
"The flaw in my colleagues’ decision is that it elevates the
reserved powers of a state referred to (but not granted by) the
Tenth Amendment above the powers delegated to the federal
government by the Constitution. But the converse is true:
Where the federal government, including the Supreme Court,
exercises powers delegated to it by the Constitution, then the
state has no reserved sovereign power to act in a contrary
manner. For this reason, I cannot agree with my colleagues’
conclusion that “[t]he constitutional right of the State to sue
6 to preserve its republican form of government trumps the common
law doctrine of tribal immunity.”1 Consequently, I would affirm
the order granting the Tribe’s motion to quash."
1999: HERE v State of California - Proposition 5
In June of 1999, the California Supreme Court ruled on the HERE v. Davis case. This was the successful challenge to Proposition 5, a statutory ballot measure that included banked or house banked games. The Supreme Court held that: A banking game is one in which any person or entity takes on all comers, paying all winners and collecting from all losers. Under the Supreme Court’s analysis the purposes of Penal Code Section 330’s prohibition against banking games, even though the house does not own the bank. Further the Supreme Court held that: Article 4 Section 19 (e) of the California Constitution elevated the Penal Code Section 330 to a constitutional level. Accordingly the Legislature may not authorize any game that would constitute casino gambling.
1996: Western Telcon v Califoronia State Lottery
This case was decided by the California Supreme Court on June 24, 1996. The court held that the lottery's electronic keno game was not a lawful lottery game, but an illegal banked game that is prohibited in California. Hence the state lost the case although the ruling is favorable to the state's position in negotiating with Indian tribes. In non-banked games, including the lottery, the house collects a flat percentage. With a banked game the house is betting against the players and has a stake in the outcome. Although not strictly an Indian gaming case, it has ramifications over what is legal in California, hence what the tribes can operate.
May 1999: Kelly v. First Astri Corp
In 1999, banking games were illegal on and off of Indian Reservations. 3. “Banking game” As we have discussed, section 330 prohibits (among other things) the playing or carrying on, for money, of “any banking ... game played with cards....” In Western Telcon, supra, 13 Cal.4th at page 487, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 812, 917 P.2d 651, our high state court explained the definition of “banking game”: “When one party wagers simultaneously against a number of others on the outcome of a game, the scheme is a called a banked game or, in the words of our statute (§ 330), a ‘banking game.’ This court first defined **817 the term ‘banking game’ in People v. Carroll (1889) 80 Cal. 153, 157-158, 22 P. 129, accepting as ‘suffi-ciently accurate’ the definition given by a witness at trial: ‘ “[A] game conducted by *474 one or more persons where there is a fund against which everybody has a right to bet, the bank being responsible for the payment of all the funds, taking all that is won, and paying out all that is lost. The fund which is provided for that purpose is generally called the bank, and the person who conducts it the banker.” ’ With variations in phrasing, this definition has been accepted and applied by California courts in many cases since. (See, e.g., Tibbetts v. Van de Kamp  222 Cal.App.3d [389,] 393, 271 Cal.Rptr. 792; Sullivan v. Fox [, su-pra,] 189 Cal.App.3d 673, 678, 235 Cal.Rptr. 5; In re Lowrie (1919) 43 Cal.App. 564, 566, 185 P. 421.) As succinctly stated in People v. Ambrose (1953) 265 P.2d 191, 122 Cal.App.2d Supp. 966, 970:
Sept. 1998: Oliver v County of Los Angeles
“[Newjack] is not one of the games specifically mentioned in section 330. The
question of its legality or illegality thus depends upon whether it qualifies as either a
banking or a percentage game. This is an issue of law. [Citations.]” (Sullivan v. Fox) In the instant case, we expand this
analysis and we now hold that a game will be determined to be a banking game if under
the rules of that game, it is possible that the house, another entity, a player, or an observer
can maintain a bank or operate as a bank during the play of the game. In Huntington
Park, the trial court observed that the position of player-dealer in pai gow “continually
and systematically rotates among each of the participants.” (Id. at p. 245.)
1982: Assembly v. Deukmejian , 30 Cal.3d 638
As stated by the California Supreme Court in Assembly of State of Cal. V. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal. 3d 638,655, “[A] referendum filed against the entirety of a statue stays that statute pending voter approval.” This California Supreme Court case was helpful during the 2007 compact referendum providing clarification on whether or not the compacts on referendum were or were not in effect. See letters in related items.
July 23, 1997: AG Lungren vs. Community Redevlop Agency of Palm Springs