Tohono O'odham Nation v. Ducey
| Decision Date | 30 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. CV-15-01135-PHX-DGC,CV-15-01135-PHX-DGC |
| Citation | 174 F.Supp.3d 1194 |
| Parties | Tohono O'odham Nation, Plaintiff, v. Douglas A. Ducey, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
Danielle Spinelli, Kelly P. Dunbar, Kevin M. Lamb, Seth P. Waxman, Sonya L. Lebsack, Wilmer, Cutler, Pickering, Hale & Dorr, LLP, Washington, DC, Erin Norris Bass, Karl Michael Tilleman, Paul Kipp Charlton, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Jonathan Landis Jantzen, Laura Lynn Berglan, Tohono O'odham Nation, Sells, AZ, for Plaintiff.
Carrie Alane Pixler Ryerson, Doug C. Northup, Patrick Irvine, Fennemore Craig PC, Phoenix, AZ, Matthew A. Hoffman, Timothy W. Loose, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Matthew D. McGill, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
In May 2013, this Court ruled that the Gaming Compact between the State of Arizona and the Tohono O'odham Nation did not prohibit the Nation from building a new casino in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Arizona v. Tohono O'odham Nation , 944 F.Supp.2d 748 (D.Ariz.2013) (“Tohono O'odham II ”). Subsequently, the Nation began constructing a casino known as the West Valley Resort in Glendale, Arizona, a suburb of Phoenix. In April 2015, while construction was ongoing, Daniel Bergin, Director of the Arizona Department of Gaming (“ADG”), wrote a letter to the Nation reiterating the Department's longstanding position that the Nation engaged in fraud during the formation of the Compact, and asserting authority to withhold certification from the Resort's vendors and employees based on this conduct. In response, the Nation brought this lawsuit, claiming that federal law preempts any state-law authority ADG might have to withhold these certifications.
The Director has asserted counterclaims against the Nation for promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and material misrepresentation. Doc. 96. The Director seeks a variety of relief, including (1) a declaration that “ADG is not obligated to certify or authorize the Nation's proposed class III gaming facility on the Glendale property or any other Nation-owned or operated class III gaming facility in the Phoenix metropolitan area”; (2) a judgment that “the Nation is estopped from opening any class III gaming facilities in the Phoenix metropolitan area”; (3) a declaration or injunction that the Nation is prohibited from conducting class III gaming activities on the Glendale property; (4) a declaration that the Compact is voidable and unenforceable and subject to rescission; and (5) reformation of the compact. Id. at 35-36.1 The Nation moves to dismiss these counterclaims. Doc. 108. The motion has been fully briefed and the Court heard oral argument on March 9, 2016. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.
In California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians , 480 U.S. 202, 107 S.Ct. 1083, 94 L.Ed.2d 244 (1987), the Supreme Court held that states that permitted some form of gambling could not prohibit such gambling on Indian lands. In response, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701 -2721, to give states “some role in the regulation of Indian gaming.” Artichoke Joe's Cal. Grand Casino v. Norton , 353 F.3d 712, 715 (9th Cir.2003). IGRA divides gaming into three classes: Class I, which includes social games with prizes of minimum value and traditional forms of Indian gaming; Class II, which includes bingo and certain card games; and Class III, which includes all other games, including “casino-style” games. 25 U.S.C. § 2703(7)(A), (7)(B), (8). Class III gaming is permitted on Indian land only if it is authorized by a tribal ordinance, conducted in a state that permits such gaming, and “conducted in conformance with a Tribal-State compact entered into by the Indian tribe and the State.” § 2710(d)(1).
Arizona created the ADG to carry out the state regulation authorized by IGRA. Among other things, ADG is charged with executing the state's duties under tribal-state compacts, certifying persons and entities involved in gaming under tribal-state compacts, and “cooperat[ing] with appropriate law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in the investigation and prosecution of...violations.” A.R.S. § 5–602. ADG is authorized to promulgate regulations and impose civil penalties, and may request that the Attorney General file a civil action to recover such penalties. § 602.01. ADG is required to discharge these duties so as to “promote the public welfare and public safety” and “prevent corrupt influences from infiltrating Indian gaming.” § 602(A).
On January 24, 2003, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior approved a tribal-state compact between the Nation and Arizona (the “Compact”). See Tohono O'odham II , 944 F.Supp.2d at 754. The Compact permits the Nation to operate four Class III gaming facilities on Nation land in Arizona. Doc. 1-2 at 24-25. The Compact requires prospective gaming employees, contractors, and vendors to obtain certification from ADG. Specifically, the Compact provides that ADG “shall conduct the necessary background investigation to ensure the Applicant is qualified for State Certification.” Doc. 1-3 at 4. Once ADG has completed its background check, it must either issue the certification or deny the application and provide the grounds for the denial. Id. ADG may refuse to certify an applicant who has been convicted of a felony, has previously violated a gaming law, or has provided false statements in his application. Id. at 5.
After the Compact was executed, the Nation purchased unincorporated land in Glendale. Several years later, the Nation announced plans to use the land for a Class III gaming facility to be known as the West Valley Resort. The State of Arizona filed suit in this Court, arguing that the Nation's plans were not authorized by IGRA and violated the Compact's ban on additional casinos in the Phoenix area. See Tohono O'odham II , 944 F.Supp.2d 748. The State also asserted that the Nation committed fraud by misrepresenting that the Compact would preclude the Nation from building an additional casino in the Phoenix area. The Court held that the Nation's construction of a casino on the Glendale land was not prohibited by IGRA or the Compact. The Court also found that the State's fraud and promissory estoppel claims were barred by the Nation's sovereign immunity. The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed. Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Tohono O'odham Nation , No. 13–16517, 818 F.3d 549, 2016 WL 1211834 (9th Cir., Mar. 29, 2016).
The Nation began construction of the West Valley Resort in December 2014. On February 2, 2015, Director Bergin expressed concern to the Nation that the casino was “not authorized, and, as a consequence...ADG would not have the authority to participate in any certification or approval processes relating to the opening or operation of the casino.” Doc. 1, ¶ 75. On April 10, 2015, Bergin informed the Nation that “ADG lacks statutory authority to approve [the Nation's] Glendale casino notwithstanding [the Court's earlier decision].” Doc. 1-5 at 2. Bergin expressed his belief that the Nation committed fraud during the formation of the Compact and that the fraud “if[ied] any right that [the Nation] would otherwise have under the compact to build the Glendale casino.” Id. He referenced A.R.S. § 5–602(C), which “requires ADG to execute the State's duties under tribal-state compacts ‘in a manner that is consistent with this state's desire to have extensive, thorough and fair regulation of Indian gaming permitted under the tribal-state compacts.’ ” Id. at 3 (quoting § 5–602(C) (emphasis in Bergin letter)). Bergin stated that “the record created in [the prior litigation] includes credible and largely unrefuted evidence that [the Nation] engaged in deceptive behavior and made significant misrepresentations during the compact negotiations.” Id. at 3-4. He concluded that gaming at the casino would not qualify as “Indian gaming permitted under the Tribal-State compact.” Id.
In May 2015, ADG issued a new notice for its certification applications:
Please be advised this application for certification is valid only for authorized Arizona gaming facilities. Providing goods or services to any location considered by the State to be unauthorized, or in pending litigation with the State concerning whether it is authorized, would be outside the approval granted through State Certification. Vendors providing goods or services to unauthorized facilities may be subject to legal and/or regulatory risks.
Doc. 1, ¶ 86. The notice also stated that “based upon the fraud and misrepresentation committed” by the Nation, “[ADG] has determined that the proposed West Valley casino is not authorized.” Id. , ¶ 88.
On June 22, 2015, the Nation filed this action against Arizona Governor Douglas Ducey, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, and Director Bergin, alleging that IGRA preempted Defendants' policy of refusing to provide certifications for the West Valley Resort. Id. at 32, ¶ 1. The Nation asked the Court to enter a preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendants from carrying out this policy and Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On September 17, 2015, the Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction, granted the motion to dismiss the Governor and Attorney General, and denied the remainder of the motion to dismiss. Doc. 82. Thereafter, the Director asserted the counterclaims at issue in this order.
The Nation argues that the Director lacks capacity under Arizona law to assert counterclaims against the Nation, and that the counterclaims are barred by the Nation's sovereign immunity. Doc. 108 at 17-25. The Nation also argues that the Director has failed to state a claim on some counterclaims.
Capacity is “a party's personal right to litigate in federal court.”...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cayuga Indian Nation of N.Y. v. Seneca Cnty.
...of the question that the tribe has presented, whether or not it is favorable to the tribe. See, Tohono O'odham Nation v. Ducey , 174 F.Supp.3d 1194, 1204 (D. Ariz. 2016) ("Having placed a question before the court, a sovereign acknowledges the court's authority to resolve that question, whe......
-
The Cherokee Nation v. United States Dep't of Interior
...tribe mirroring the plaintiff tribe's own claims in the case were not barred by tribal immunity. See Tohono O'odham Nation v. Ducey, 174 F.Supp.3d 1194, 1204-05 (D. Ariz. 2016).[18] Even if Wichita & Affiliated Tribes did not foreclose this approach, the Court still would not follow it. Imp......
- Finkle v. Ryan, CV 14-01343-PHX-DGC (JZB)
-
Alaska Logistics, LLC v. Newtok Vill. Council
...sounding in recoupment can be sustained as counterclaims against a tribe" without violating the tribe's sovereign immunity.73 In Tohono O'odham Nation v. Ducey , a tribe filed suit in federal district court, and the director of the Arizona Department of Gaming asserted several counterclaims......