You are here: Home / Off Reservation Gaming / Applications in Process / Twenty Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians

Twenty Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians

March 5, 2019: Notice of (Non-Gaming) Land Acquisition Application for Twenty-Nine Palms Band for 2.40 acres.
July 21, 2017: Notice of Land Acquisition Application for the Twenty-Nine Palms Band for 96.44 acres
June 6, 2017: 2.40 ac. Fee to Trust - Non Gaming
Jan. 28, 2013: EIS - "#2" On Reservation Casino
November 10, 2011: Senator Feinstein Opposes Off Reservation Casino
May 20, 2010: 29 Palms v Governor Schwarzenegger - judgment
Pursuant to the Order filed herewith, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court orders that such judgment be entered.
May 19, 2010: 29 Palms v Governor Schwarzenegger Court Order
The Court declines to grant Plaintiff leave to amend, as Plaintiff has now had four opportunities to present sufficient factual allegations to state a claim, and has failed to do so. Furthermore, Plaintiff has failed to explain it could remedy the deficiencies set forth above through further amendment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.
April 26, 2010: 29 Palms v California State Franchise Tax Board
California has sovereign authority to tax Indians resident within its borders who do not live on reservations. IGRA does not impliedly preempt the tax because the tax does not interfere with the Tribe’s gaming operation or Congress’ purpose of ensuring that the Tribe is the primary beneficiary of its gaming operation. (Mot. 8-13.) Further, the tax does not interfere with Tribal self-governance because it impacts only members living offreservation and does not substantially affect essential governmental functions.
April 5, 2010: Memorandum of Points and Authorities
The Tribe asserts that the State Defendants’ efforts to impose personal income tax liability on Tribal members’ per capita payments or casino wages is preempted by federal law and interferes with Tribal sovereignty. The TAC fails to state a claim for relief that is cognizable as a matter of law because, under federal common law, while a tribal member living on her tribe’s reservation is ordinarily exempt from state personal income tax on income earned from on-reservation activities, in this case no Tribal member lives on the Tribe’s reservation. The Tribe’s attempt to explain why its members live off-reservation is irrelevant to a determination whether the exemption applies.
Feb. 26, 2010: 29 Palms 3rd Amended Complaint
Tribe should not have to pay state franchise Tax board
Jan. 15. 2010: Spotlight 29 Casino Cuts Workers Pay 12 Percent
Jan. 9, 2010: Destination: Spotlight 29 Casino
Oct. 1, 2009: Twenty-Nine Palms v Governor Schwarzenegger
The Tribe has filed suit against the State of California to evade personal income taxes. The Tribe is claiming that they could not build homes on reservation land. While the suit speaks of the Reservation in Coachella it omits the reservation in Twenty Nine Palms. Tribes who reside on reservations do not have to pay state taxes. But if tribal members live on fee land individuals must pay like anyone else.
June 2008: Agenda Item 9.1.
Proposed Casino Project
April 28, 2008: Governor Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment
The Draft EA is inadequate in many respects.
April 25, 2008 City of Twenty Nine Palms Responds
Jan. 24, 2008: City of 29 Palms Staff Report on Proposed Casino
Dec. 12, 2007: Casino Expansion Press Release
Identifies proposed project
Oct. 6, 2004: Twentynine Palms Tribal Allocation Plan
August 23, 2004: Roll of the Dice
Wall Street Journal by John R. emshwiller and Christina Binkley

Document Actions