MGM Glob. Resorts Dev., LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Interior
| Decision Date | 16 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 19-2377 (RC) |
| Parties | MGM GLOBAL RESORTS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, AND BLUE TARP REDEVELOPMENT LLC Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Before the Court are relatively preliminary motions in the latest round of litigation in a long-running battle over a stalled casino project in East Windsor, Connecticut. Not long ago, the State of Connecticut ("Connecticut"), the Mashantucket Pequot Tribe (the "Pequot"), and the Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut (the "Mohegan") (together with the Pequot, the "Tribes") sued the Department of the Interior seeking administrative approval of certain amendments (the "Amendments") to certain agreements between the Connecticut and the Tribes. Interior's approval was necessary to give effect to the Amendments, which would have cleared the way for the development of the East Windsor casino. Plaintiffs here, MGM Global Blue Resorts Development LLC and Blue Tarp Redevelopment LLC (together "MGM"), intervened in that case based on competitive harms they would suffer if the Amendments were approved by Interior. That case resolved itself when Interior approved the Amendments. Now the same parties have returned to this Court, but their alliances have shifted. This time MGM is suing Interior and related government defendants (collectively, the "Government Defendants") in an effort to unravel the Government's approval of the Amendments. Connecticut and the Tribes (together, "Movants") now move to intervene alongside the Government Defendants on a limited basis to argue that they are an indispensable party to the action which, they say, must be dismissed because their sovereign immunity makes their joinder here impossible.
At the moment the Court considers only whether this limited intervention should be allowed. Because the Court concludes that it should, the Court grants Movants' motion to intervene and will allow the filing of the Movants' proposed Motion to Dismiss. That motion will need to be briefed before the Court can address the sovereign immunity argument and other arguments for dismissal raised by the Government Defendants in their own pending Motion to Dismiss. The Court also addresses a pending motion concerning scheduling below.
In earlier opinions in a related case, the Court has recounted in more detail the factual and procedural history among the participants here. See Connecticut v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior ("Connecticut I"), 344 F. Supp. 3d 279, 288-95 (D.D.C. 2018); Connecticut v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior ("Connecticut II"), 363 F. Supp. 3d 45, 51-54 (D.D.C. 2019). In future opinions the Court will have the opportunity to do so again, as there is at least one dispositive motion already pending in this current case. See Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16. For now, the Court provides only the broad overview necessary to resolve the instant motions for intervention and for a scheduling order. The Court relies on its prior opinions here, as well as on both the Motion to Intervene and MGM's complaint because "motions to intervene are usually evaluated on the basis of well pleaded matters in the motion, the complaint, and any responses of opponents to intervention." Foster v. Gueory, 655 F.2d 1319, 1324 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
MGM's claims in the Complaint are brought primarily under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706, and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721. The IGRA governs Class III casino gaming—blackjack, roulette, and other table games—on tribal land. 25 U.S.C. §2710(d); 25 C.F.R. § 502.4; Amador Cty. v. Salazar, 640 F.3d 373, 376 (D.C. Cir. 2011). It mandates that a tribe must obtain authorization from a state before conducting Class III gaming on land within that state's borders. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(1)(C). This authorization can be secured through a negotiated agreement between the tribe and the state, called a "tribal-state compact," or, in cases where the tribe and the state cannot agree, through "secretarial procedures" laid out by the Secretary of the Interior in consultation with the tribe and a mediator. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A) (tribal-state compact), (d)(7)(B)(vii) (secretarial procedures). The Mohegan Tribe operates a casino on its land pursuant to a Compact with Connecticut, and the Pequot operates one on its lands pursuant to secretarial procedures. Compl. ¶ 25 (citing 56 Fed. Reg. 24,996 (May 31, 1991) ("Pequot Procedures"); 59 Fed. Reg. 65,130 (Dec. 16, 1994) ("Mohegan Compact")); Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. for Limited Intervention at 1-2 ("Mot. Intervene"), ECF No. 24-1. Each Tribe has also executed a Memorandum of Understanding with Connecticut relating to their casino operations. Compl. ¶ 27; see Mot. Intervene at 2 (referencing "related Memoranda of Understanding").
In 2015, the Tribes formed a joint venture, MMCT Venture LLC ("MMCT"), with the aim of building and operating an off-reservation, commercial casino in East Windsor, Connecticut. Connecticut I, 344 F. Supp. 3d at 291; Compl. ¶¶ 39-40. Because this type of casino was not permitted under the Mohegan Compact, Pequot Procedures, and related Memoranda of Understanding, Connecticut passed a law, Public Act 17-89, providing authorization for the casino but stating that this authorization would not be effective unless anduntil those documents were amended and those amendments approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Connecticut I, 344 F. Supp. 3d at 291-2; Compl. ¶¶ 42-45; see 2017 Conn. Acts 17-89 (Reg. Sess.).1 The Tribes and Connecticut approved and executed the necessary amendments thereafter and requested approval from the Department of the Interior's Office of Indian Gaming. Connecticut I, 344 F. Supp. 3d at 292. When the Secretary "returned" the proposed Amendments without approving them, Connecticut and the Tribes filed suit in this Court under the APA and IGRA seeking an order compelling their approval. Id. at 292-93. Interior later recognized that the Mohegan Amendments were "deemed approved"2 and the Mohegan dropped out of the case. 83 Fed. Reg. 25,484 (June 1, 2018); Mot. Intervene at 4.
MGM moved to intervene as a defendant, arguing that the East Windsor casino would create new competition very close to an MGM casino in Springfield, Massachusetts, and that the Amendments' handling of royalty payments would incentivize Connecticut to prefer future development proposals from MMCT over otherwise comparable proposals from MGM. See Connecticut I, 344 F. Supp. 3d at 297. The Court granted MGM's intervention motion. Id. at 306. At the same time, however, it granted a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. Id. Thereafter, Connecticut and the Pequot moved to amend their complaint and the Court granted this motion as well. Connecticut II, 363 F. Supp. 3d at 50. Thereafter, Interior approved the Pequot Amendments, 84 Fed. Reg. 11,122 (Mar. 25, 2019), and the partiesstipulated to dismissal of the Connecticut case, Connecticut v. Dep't of the Interior, No. 17-cv-02564, ECF 40 (D.D.C. June 15, 2018).
MGM then filed this action in which they allege that Interior's approval of the Pequot Amendments and deemed approval of the Mohegan Amendments violated the APA and the IGRA. See generally Compl. As mentioned above, the Government Defendants have moved to dismiss. Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 16. Connecticut and the Tribes seek limited intervention for the purpose of moving to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 for failure to join an indispensable party. Mot. Intervene, ECF No. 24-1. Movants have submitted, but not filed, a proposed motion to dismiss arguing that the case cannot proceed without them because they are indispensable parties but that they cannot be joined because they are entitled to sovereign immunity. See Intervenor Tribes and State of Conn.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 24-2. The Government Defendants "take no position on the Motion for Limited Intervention." Fed. Defs.' Resp. to Mot. for Limited Intervention at 1, ECF No. 31. MGM opposes limited intervention, but says it would not oppose Movants' intervention as full parties to the litigation. Pl.'s Opp'n to Mot. for Limited Intervention ("Opp'n) at 2, ECF No. 34. The Motion to Intervene is now ripe for decision.
"The right of intervention conferred by Rule 24 implements the basic jurisprudential assumption that the interest of justice is best served when all parties with a real stake in a controversy are afforded an opportunity to be heard." Hodgson v. United Mine Workers, 473 F.2d 118, 130 (D.C. Cir. 1972). Specifically, Rule 24(a) provides that:
[o]n timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who . . . claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impedethe movant's ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.
The D.C. Circuit has established that the right to intervene under Rule 24(a) depends on the applicant's ability to satisfy four factors: (1) whether the motion to intervene was timely; (2) whether the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (3) whether the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest; and (4) whether the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. See Fund for Animals, Inc. v. Norton, 322 F.3d 728, 731 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citations omitted); see also Jones v. Prince George's Cty., 348 F.3d 1014, 1017 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial