Navajo Nation v. Dalley
Decision Date | 24 July 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 16-2205,16-2205 |
Citation | 896 F.3d 1196 |
Parties | NAVAJO NATION; Northern Edge Navajo Casino, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. The Honorable Bradford J. DALLEY, District Judge, Eleventh Judicial District, New Mexico, in his official capacity; Harold McNeal; Michelle McNeal, Defendants–Appellees, New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association ; Pueblo of Santa Ana, Amici Curiae. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Patrick T. Mason, Mason & Isaacson, P.A., Gallup, New Mexico, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Nicholas M. Sydow, Office of the New Mexico Attorney General, Santa Fe, New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellee Bradford J. Dalley.
Daniel M. Rosenfelt, Rios Law Firm, Albuquerque, New Mexico (Linda J. Rios, Rios Law Firm, Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees Harold McNeal and Michelle McNeal.
Michael B. Browde, Albuquerque, New Mexico (David J. Stout, Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the brief), for Amicus Curiae New Mexico Trial Lawyers Association, in support of Defendants-Appellees.
Richard W. Hughes, Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu, LLP, Santa Fe, New Mexico (Donna M. Connolly, Rothstein, Donatelli, Hughes, Dahlstrom, Schoenburg & Bienvenu, LLP, Santa Fe, New Mexico, with him on the brief), for Amicus Curiae Pueblo of Santa Ana, in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Before HOLMES, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
The Appellants, the Navajo Nation and its wholly-owned government enterprise the Northern Edge Navajo Casino (together, the "Tribe" or "Nation"), entered into a state-tribal gaming compact with New Mexico under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 – 2721. The Tribe agreed not only to waive its sovereign immunity for personal-injury lawsuits brought by visitors to its on-reservation gaming facilities, but also to permit state courts to take jurisdiction over such claims. Harold and Michelle McNeal (the "McNeals") are plaintiffs in just such a state-court action against the Tribe. Mr. McNeal allegedly slipped on a wet floor in the Northern Edge Navajo Casino. This slip-and-fall incident constituted the basis for the McNeals' tort claims against the Nation for negligence, res ipsa loquitur, and loss of consortium. Judge Bradford Dalley is a New Mexico state judge who presides over the ongoing state-court proceedings. We refer to the McNeals and Judge Dalley collectively as the Appellees.
The Tribe moved to dismiss the McNeals' complaint, arguing that the state court lacked jurisdiction because neither IGRA nor Navajo law permits the shifting of jurisdiction to a state court over such personal-injury claims. The state court rejected that motion. In response, the Tribe sought declaratory relief in federal court on the basis of the same arguments. The district court granted summary judgment for the McNeals and Judge Dalley, holding that IGRA permitted tribes and states to agree to shift jurisdiction to the state courts and that Navajo law did not prohibit such an allocation of jurisdiction. The Tribe timely appealed. Prior to oral argument, we ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefs as to whether the district court had jurisdiction.
Along with the jurisdictional issue, the parties also dispute (1) whether IGRA permits an Indian tribe to allocate jurisdiction over a tort claim arising on Indian land to a state court, and (2) assuming that IGRA does allow for such an allocation, whether the Navajo Nation Council ("NNC") was empowered to shift jurisdiction to the state court under Navajo Law.
After first concluding that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, we determine that IGRA, under its plain terms, does not authorize an allocation of jurisdiction over tort claims of the kind at issue here. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand with instructions to grant the declaratory relief sought by the Nation.
In 1987, the Supreme Court decided California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , in which it held that states could not regulate gaming activities on Indian land without Congressional authorization. 480 U.S. 202, 207, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987) (, )superseded by statute , Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 – 2721, as recognized in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty. , ––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 2024, 188 L.Ed.2d 1071 (2014) ; see New Mexico v. Dep't of Interior ("N.M./DOI "), 854 F.3d 1207, 1211 (10th Cir. 2017) (); Kevin K. Washburn, Recurring Problems in Indian Gaming , 1 WYO. L. REV. 427, 428 (2001) ().
In response to that "bombshell" ruling, Franklin Ducheneaux, The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Background and Legislative History , 42 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 99, 154 (2010), Congress enacted IGRA in 1988 to create a framework for states and Indian tribes to cooperate in regulating on-reservation tribal gaming, see Pueblo of Pojoaque v. New Mexico , 863 F.3d 1226, 1232 (10th Cir. 2017) (); see also Bay Mills , 134 S.Ct. at 2034 (); N.M./DOI , 854 F.3d at 1212 ( ); COHEN’S HANDBOOK OF FEDERAL INDIAN LAW § 12.01, at 876 (Nell Jessup Newton ed., 2012) [hereinafter, " COHEN’S HANDBOOK "] ("IGRA accommodated the interests of tribes in pursuing gaming but also set forth a federal regulatory regime, and gave a powerful role to states by providing for significant state involvement in the decision to permit casino-style gaming."). IGRA enables states and tribes to negotiate compacts addressing a range of topics relating to tribal gaming. See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d).
Under IGRA, tribes that seek to conduct gaming activities are incentivized to negotiate gaming compacts with states because, absent such compacts, the most "lucrative" form of gaming—Class III gaming—is forbidden. N.M./DOI , 854 F.3d at 1212 (); see § 2710(d)(1) ; Bay Mills , 134 S.Ct. at 2035 (); Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida , 517 U.S. 44, 47, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 134 L.Ed.2d 252 (1996) (). "Class III gaming ... includes casino games, slot machines, and horse racing." Bay Mills , 134 S.Ct. at 2028 ; see Washburn, supra , at 429 ().1
Importantly, IGRA expressly prescribes the matters that are permissible subjects of gaming-compact negotiations between tribes and states. § 2710(d)(3)(C). In the tribal-state compact that the Tribe and New Mexico entered into, the Tribe agrees not only to waive its sovereign immunity as to personal-injury claims brought by visitors to its casinos but also to permit such claims to be brought in state court. See Aplt.'s App. at 26 (State-Tribal Compact, dated Nov. 6, 2003).2 More specifically, the compact permits such state-court litigation, "unless it is finally determined by a state or federal court that IGRA does not permit the shifting of jurisdiction over visitors' personal injury suits to state court." Id .
The present dispute has its genesis in a slip-and-fall case that the McNeals brought in New Mexico state court. Mr. McNeal allegedly fell on a wet bathroom floor in the Navajo Northern Edge Casino. He and his wife sued the Nation, which owns and operates the casino, claiming negligent maintenance, res ipsa loquitur, and loss of consortium. In a motion to dismiss, the Tribe argued that the state court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for two reasons. First, it contended that this was so because IGRA does not authorize states and tribes to enter into compacts that shift jurisdiction over tort claims stemming from events on Indian country to state court—viz. , IGRA does not contemplate that the shifting of jurisdiction over such claims is a permissible subject of compact negotiations. Second, it argued that NNC was not authorized to shift jurisdiction over tort claims against the Nation, like those of the McNeals, to state court.
The state court denied the Tribe’s motion to dismiss on the basis that the New Mexico Supreme Court, in Doe v. Santa Clara Pueblo , had already decided the issue. 141 N.M. 269, 154 P.3d 644, 646 (2007) (). Subsequently, Judge Dalley took over the state court case.
The Tribe then brought this suit for a declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. The Tribe sought a declaratory judgment "that [the] Indian Gaming Regulatory Act does not permit the shifting of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kan. Natural Res. Coal. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior
...over this matter.B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction"We review de novo whether subject-matter jurisdiction is proper." Navajo Nation v. Dalley , 896 F.3d 1196, 1203 (10th Cir. 2018). There is no dispute that the APA confers subject matter jurisdiction over KNRC's claim if 5 U.S.C. § 805 does not......
-
Keweenaw Bay Indian Cmty. v. Khouri
...III games." Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty. , 572 U.S. 782, 792, 134 S.Ct. 2024, 188 L.Ed.2d 1071 (2014) ; see Navajo Nation v. Dalley , 896 F.3d 1196, 1207 (10th Cir. 2018) ("The Court's analysis in Bay Mills leads us to the clear conclusion that Class III gaming activity relates only t......
-
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Boulder Cnty. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc.
...1242, 1245 (10th Cir. 2012). We also apply de novo review to questions of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Navajo Nation v. Dalley , 896 F.3d 1196, 1203 (10th Cir. 2018).B. Grounds Asserted for Federal JurisdictionIn our prior decision, we rejected the Energy Companies’ reliance on § 14......
-
Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California
...at 49, 116 S.Ct. 1114 (citing § 2710(d)(3)(C) as setting "the permissible scope of a Tribal-State compact"); Navajo Nation v. Dalley , 896 F.3d 1196, 1205 n.4 (10th Cir. 2018) (explaining that "the negotiated terms of the Compact cannot exceed what is authorized by IGRA" (quotations omitted......