U.S. ex rel. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. Pan American Management Co., Nos. 85-5279

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
Writing for the CourtBefore HEANEY, FAGG, and BOWMAN; HEANEY
Citation789 F.2d 632
Decision Date30 April 1986
Docket Number85-5280,Nos. 85-5279
PartiesUNITED STATES of America ex rel. SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY, Appellee, v. PAN AMERICAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY: New England Entertainment Company, Appellants, Dennis Courtney d/b/a New England Entertainment Company; Alan Arbogast, d/b/a New England Entertainment Company; Jim Arbogast, d/b/a New England Entertainment Company; John Panetta; d/b/a New England Entertainment Company, Appellant, Michael Forshette d/b/a New England Entertainment Company; Little Six Enterprises, Alfred Estrada, Appellants. LITTLE SIX ENTERPRISES as General Partnership, Appellant, v. Donald P. HODEL Secretary, United States Department of the Interior, John W. Fritz, Deputy Assistant Secretary Indian Affairs, United States Department of the Interior, Appellees, and Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community.

Page 632

789 F.2d 632
UNITED STATES of America ex rel. SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX
COMMUNITY, Appellee,
v.
PAN AMERICAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY: New England Entertainment
Company, Appellants,
Dennis Courtney d/b/a New England Entertainment Company;
Alan Arbogast, d/b/a New England Entertainment
Company; Jim Arbogast, d/b/a New
England Entertainment Company;
John Panetta; d/b/a New England Entertainment Company, Appellant,
Michael Forshette d/b/a New England Entertainment Company;
Little Six Enterprises, Alfred Estrada, Appellants.
LITTLE SIX ENTERPRISES as General Partnership, Appellant,
v.
Donald P. HODEL Secretary, United States Department of the
Interior, John W. Fritz, Deputy Assistant
Secretary Indian Affairs, United States
Department of the Interior, Appellees,
and Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community.
Nos. 85-5279, 85-5280.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 12, 1985.
Decided April 30, 1986.

Page 633

George F. McGunnigle, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellants.

Donald J. Simon and Peter C. Monson, Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before HEANEY, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

HEANEY, Circuit Judge.

These appeals arise out of a dispute over management agreements for bingo facilities operating on tribal trust lands. In United States of America ex rel. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. Little Six Enterprises, No. 85-5279, Little Six Enterprises (LSE) appeals from a district court order granting summary judgment voiding LSE's management agreements. In Little Six Enterprises v. Hodel, No. 85-5280, LSE appeals from a district court order granting summary judgment dismissing its challenge to the Interior Department's disproval of a management agreement.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 10, 1982, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (Community), a federally-recognized Indian tribe, signed a management agreement allowing defendant New England Entertainment Company (New England) to develop and run a bingo operation on tribal lands. At the time they entered into this agreement, the federal government's position was that this type of agreement did not require approval by the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Sec. 81. 1 The term of the agreement

Page 634

was to be fifteen years, and New England was to receive forty-five percent of the net operating profits after the retirement of the debt incurred in constructing and developing the facilities. 2 The agreement also provided that if the Community elected to establish any other bingo activities on its property, New England would have the right to compel the Community to enter into a new management agreement with the same terms. In 1982, New England assigned its interest in the agreement to New England/Pan American Entertainment Company (Pan American), which in turn assigned its interests to LSE. On July 8, 1983, LSE executed a new bingo hall management agreement with the Community, with terms essentially identical to the original agreement. On October 9, 1984, LSE and the Community entered into a separate management agreement for a new bingo lounge to be operated out of the Community Cultural Center.

On February 8, 1985, subsequent to a change in the Community's leadership, the Community filed a complaint in district court against LSE 3 pursuant to 25 U.S.C. Sec. 81, seeking damages, an accounting, and declaratory and injunctive relief. 4 It also filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to have the management agreements held null and void. LSE filed a counterclaim seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. 5 On June 25, 1985, following a decision by John W. Fritz, Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs, disapproving the management agreements, LSE instituted a separate action against Fritz and Donald P. Hodel, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, seeking judicial review of the administrative decision. 6 The government filed a motion

Page 635

for judgment on the pleadings, or, in the alternative, for summary judgment.

On July 17, 1985, the district court heard the section 81 and administrative matters in conjunction, issuing a Memorandum Opinion and Order and a Judgment on August 9, 1985, 616 F.Supp. 1200. 7 In regard to the section 81 action, it granted the Community's motion for partial summary judgment, declaring the management agreements null and void. It denied LSE's motions for partial summary judgment and sanctions and for a stay pending the final disposition of the appeal from the administrative decision. In regard to the administrative appeal, the district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment and denied LSE's motions for preliminary injunctive relief and summary judgment. LSE appeals from the district court's orders in both actions.

II. DISCUSSION

In United States of America ex rel. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. Little Six Enterprises, the section 81 action, and in Little Six Enterprises v. Hodel, the administrative action, LSE invokes the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1291 8 and 1292. 9 Although none of the parties argue this Court's lack of jurisdiction, we must consider the issue on our own motion where a

Page 636

question exists. See Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 740, 96 S.Ct. 1202, 1204, 47 L.Ed.2d 435 (1976); Mansfield, Coldwater & Lake Michigan Railway Co. v. Swan, 111 U.S. 379, 382, 4 S.Ct. 510, 511, 28 L.Ed. 462 (1884).

Section 1291 confers jurisdiction on the Courts of Appeals over "appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States." "A 'final decision' generally is one which ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., No. 89-15930
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 7, 1992
    ...Inc. v. DHHS, 715 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1983); and Dialysis Centers, Ltd. v. Schweiker, 657 F.2d 135 (7th Cir.1981)), appeal dismissed, 789 F.2d 632 (8th Cir.1986). We have never hesitated to enforce the laws enacted by Congress for protection of the Indians on the ground that to do so would b......
  • U.S. ex rel. Hall v. Tribal Development Corp., No. 93-3519
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 9, 1995
    ...States ex rel. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. Pan American Mgmt. Co., 616 F.Supp. 1200, 1208 (D.Minn.1985), appeal dismissed, 789 F.2d 632 (8th Cir.1986)). From this, the court, in a three-paragraph opinion, concluded that Schmit, as a non-Indian, "[was] not within the zone of inte......
  • Western Shoshone Business Council For and on Behalf of Western Shoshone Tribe of Duck Valley Reservation v. Babbitt, No. 92-4062
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 27, 1993
    ...interest of nonIndians in a contractual relationship with a tribe is not within the intended purview of the statute."), appeal dismissed, 789 F.2d 632 (8th Cir.1986). We agree with the reasoning behind these decisions. Of course plaintiff EM & K is "regulated" by Sec. 81, but the undisputed......
  • Catskill Development v. Park Place Entertainment, No. 00 CIV. 8660 CM GAY.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • May 14, 2001
    ...1300 (D.D.C.1987); Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Cmty. v. Pan American Mgmt. Co., 616 F.Supp. 1200 (D.Minn.1985), dismissed on other grounds, 789 F.2d 632; Wisconsin Winnebago Bus. Comm. v. Koberstein & Ho-Chunk Mgmt., 762 F.2d 613 (7th Cir.1985). See also Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • U.S. ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., No. 89-15930
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 7, 1992
    ...Inc. v. DHHS, 715 F.2d 1292 (8th Cir.1983); and Dialysis Centers, Ltd. v. Schweiker, 657 F.2d 135 (7th Cir.1981)), appeal dismissed, 789 F.2d 632 (8th Cir.1986). We have never hesitated to enforce the laws enacted by Congress for protection of the Indians on the ground that to do so would b......
  • U.S. ex rel. Hall v. Tribal Development Corp., No. 93-3519
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • March 9, 1995
    ...States ex rel. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. Pan American Mgmt. Co., 616 F.Supp. 1200, 1208 (D.Minn.1985), appeal dismissed, 789 F.2d 632 (8th Cir.1986)). From this, the court, in a three-paragraph opinion, concluded that Schmit, as a non-Indian, "[was] not within the zone of inte......
  • Western Shoshone Business Council For and on Behalf of Western Shoshone Tribe of Duck Valley Reservation v. Babbitt, No. 92-4062
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • July 27, 1993
    ...interest of nonIndians in a contractual relationship with a tribe is not within the intended purview of the statute."), appeal dismissed, 789 F.2d 632 (8th Cir.1986). We agree with the reasoning behind these decisions. Of course plaintiff EM & K is "regulated" by Sec. 81, but the undisputed......
  • Catskill Development v. Park Place Entertainment, No. 00 CIV. 8660 CM GAY.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • May 14, 2001
    ...1300 (D.D.C.1987); Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Cmty. v. Pan American Mgmt. Co., 616 F.Supp. 1200 (D.Minn.1985), dismissed on other grounds, 789 F.2d 632; Wisconsin Winnebago Bus. Comm. v. Koberstein & Ho-Chunk Mgmt., 762 F.2d 613 (7th Cir.1985). See also Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT