United States ex rel. Shakopee v. Pan American Management, Civ. No. 4-85-231

CourtUnited States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
Writing for the CourtDIANA E. MURPHY
Citation616 F. Supp. 1200
PartiesUNITED STATES of America ex rel. SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY, Plaintiff, v. PAN AMERICAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY; New England Entertainment Company: Dennis Courtney d/b/a New England Entertainment Company; Alan Arbogast d/b/a New England Entertainment; John Panetta d/b/a New England Entertainment Company; Michael Forschette d/b/a New England Entertainment Company; Little Enterprise; Alfred Estrada, Defendants. LITTLE SIX ENTERPRISES, Plaintiff, v. Donald P. HODEL, Secretary United States Department of Interior, and John W. Fritz, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Defendants, and Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Intervenor.
Decision Date09 August 1985
Docket NumberCiv. No. 4-85-231,4-85-880.

616 F. Supp. 1200

UNITED STATES of America ex rel. SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY, Plaintiff,
v.
PAN AMERICAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY; New England Entertainment Company: Dennis Courtney d/b/a New England Entertainment Company; Alan Arbogast d/b/a New England Entertainment; John Panetta d/b/a New England Entertainment Company; Michael Forschette d/b/a New England Entertainment Company; Little Enterprise; Alfred Estrada, Defendants.

LITTLE SIX ENTERPRISES, Plaintiff,
v.
Donald P. HODEL, Secretary United States Department of Interior, and John W. Fritz, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, Defendants,
and
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Intervenor.

Civ. Nos. 4-85-231, 4-85-880.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division.

August 9, 1985.


616 F. Supp. 1201
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
616 F. Supp. 1202
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
616 F. Supp. 1203
Reid Peyton Chambers, Sonosky, Chambers & Sachse, Washington, D.C., and Larry B. Leventhal and James Townsend, Minneapolis, Minn., for Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community

George F. McGunnigle, Leonard, Street & Deinard, Minneapolis, Minn., and Aidan D. Jones, Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley & Casey, Washington, D.C., for Pan American Intern. Management Co., New England Entertainment Co., John Panetta, Little Six Enterprises, Alfred Estrada.

Peter C. Monson, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., and Mary Carlson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for Secretary of Interior.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

DIANA E. MURPHY, District Judge.

These related cases arise out of a dispute over the management agreements for bingo facilities operating on tribal trust lands of the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (Community) near Prior Lake, Minnesota.

In the first filed action, Civ. No. 4-85-231, the Community seeks injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, damages, and an accounting, against defendants, several companies that have entered into or been assigned rights in agreements to manage the plaintiffs' two bingo operations and individuals employed by those companies, alleging that the management agreements have not been approved by the Secretary of Interior as required by 25 U.S.C. §§ 81 and 415, and breach of contract. Jurisdiction is alleged under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1362. Defendants Pan American Management Co., Inc.,1 New England Entertainment Company, John Panetta, Little Six Enterprises (Little Six), Alfred Estrada, and Robert Page have filed an amended answer and counterclaim.2 The counterclaim seeks damages and declaratory and injunctive relief alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, detrimental reliance, tortious interference with business relationships, and tortious breach of contract. Presently before the court are the parties' cross-motions for partial summary judgment and the defendants' motion for a stay. The Community seeks summary judgment on the issue of whether the management contracts are null and void under 25 U.S.C. § 81 because they have not been approved by the Secretary of Interior. The defendants, with the exception of Little Six, seek summary judgment on the complaint based on lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction. The defendants also seek a stay of the proceedings pending disposition of the related case before the court, Little Six Enterprises v. Hodel, Civ. No. 4-85-880.

The court has also consolidated before it Civ. No. 4-85-399, an action brought by Little Six Enterprises in state court and removed to federal court by the Community and the individual defendants who are members of the Community. Little Six Enterprises seeks relief similar to that prayed for in the defendants' counterclaim in this action, but in addition asserts that the members of the Community have made

616 F. Supp. 1204
false and malicious statements. It also seeks punitive damages

In the third related action, Civ. 4-85-880, Little Six seeks mandamus and declaratory and injunctive relief against defendants, Secretary of the Interior Donald P. Hodel, and Deputy Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs John W. Fritz, (the government), alleging that the June 17, 1985 decision of Fritz disapproving the bingo management contracts was arbitrary and capricious and that the defendants have a ministerial duty to approve the 1983 management agreement. Jurisdiction is alleged under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The action was filed June 25, 1985 in the district of the District of Columbia and subsequently transferred to this court. The Community sought and was granted leave to intervene as a party-defendant. Presently before the court is the motion of Little Six for preliminary injunctive relief, which has been consolidated with a hearing on the merits under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(a)(2), and cross-motions by the government and Little Six for summary judgment.

Background

The Community is a federally recognized Indian tribe which has adopted and operates under a Constitution approved by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 U.S.C. § 476. It is a small Indian community occupying less than 300 acres of tribal land.

On April 10, 1982, defendant New England Entertainment Co. (New England) signed a management agreement with the Community to develop and run a bingo operation on tribal lands.3 The agreement was negotiated over a three day period. Although Department of the Interior and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) officials were consulted about the agreement, they did not formally approve or reject it at that time.

Counsel for New England who negotiated the contract states that the BIA officials present at the negotiating session represented that the agreement did not require BIA approval and that it was the government's position that 25 U.S.C. § 81 did not apply to contracts of this type.4 Mariana Shulstad participated in the negotiations in her role as First Assistant Field Solicitor for the United States Department of the Interior. She states that it was her opinion at the time that, under applicable law, neither she nor the representatives of the BIA had any authority to approve or disapprove the contract. Norman Crooks who signed the agreement as chairman of the community states that he also believed at the time, based on the representations of the government officials, that no approval of the contract was necessary. The agreement specifically notes at the outset that the Community is an organized and federally recognized Indian community. The agreement contains a legal description of the property located on tribal trust land and allows the management company to record the agreement "in any Public Records". The opening section of the agreement states that the Community is the owner of the described property which it seeks to develop to enhance its economic self-sufficiency and self-government. The Community is also said to be "desirous of vesting in the management company the exclusive right and obligation to finance, construct, improve, develop, manage, operate, and maintain the property in conformance with the terms and conditions of this Management Agreement."

Under the terms of the agreement, the management company was engaged for a term of 15 years "to finance and/or assist the Community in obtaining financing, to

616 F. Supp. 1205
construct, improve, develop, manage, operate and maintain the property as a facility for the conduct of bingo games and to create other revenue producing activities upon said property as mutually agreed upon." Furthermore, the Community
specifically warrants and represents to the management company that Community shall not act in any way whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, to cause this Management Agreement to be altered, amended, modified, cancelled, terminated and/or attempt to assign or transfer this Management Agreement or any right to or interest in said Agreement, without consent of the management company. Further, Community warrants and represents it shall take all actions necessary to insure that the Management Agreement shall remain in good standing at all times.

Two provisions specifically limit liens or encumbrances on the property. In the section where the management company is given responsibility to supervise the completion of all the construction and development, the agreement provides that "in no case shall liens or encumbrances attach to the land or structures thereon, which shall at all times remain the property of the Community." Later in the agreement a provision specifically binding the Community states that the:

Community hereby specifically warrants and represents to the management company that Community shall not act in any way whatsoever, either directly or indirectly to cause any party to become an encumbrancer of the property subject to this Agreement without the prior written consent of the management company except as provided in this Agreement.

In return for providing the duties contained in the management agreement, New England was to receive "forty-five percent (45%) of the net operating profits for each fiscal year resulting from and in connection with any business activities upon the property." Initially, however, 100% of the net operating profits was to be applied to retire the debt incurred in constructing and developing the facilities. The management company also has the right to compel the Community to enter into a new management agreement under the same terms and conditions if the Community elects to establish any other bingo activities on other property on its Reservation during the 15 year period of the current agreement.

The bingo operation has operated at a large profit since commencing business and is the major source of revenue and jobs to the Community. The initial debt was repaid within the first year of operation. To date the Community has received approximately $3,321,000 in profit distributions. The parties managing the operations have received approximately $2,685,000...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 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
    ...relationship with a tribe is not within the intended purview of [section 81]." United States ex rel. Shakopee v. Pan American, 616 F.Supp. 1200, 1208 (D.Minn.1985) (citing Leaf Tobacco Exporters Ass'n, Inc. v. Block, 749 F.2d 1106 (4th Cir.1984); Granville House, Inc. v. DHHS, 715 F.2d 1292......
  • Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States, No. 11-658L
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • March 11, 2014
    ...of tribes] were foremost on Congress' mind." U.S. ex rel. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. Pan American Management Co., 616 F. Supp. 1200, 1217 (D. Minn. 1985); see also U.S. ex rel. Steele v. Turn Key Gaming, Inc., 260 F.3d 971, 976-77 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing Cong. Globe, 41st Cong.......
  • 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
    ...the benefit of the Indians.' " Id. at 498 (quoting United 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 S......
  • 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
    ...on other grounds, 883 F.2d 890 (10th Cir.1989); United States ex rel. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. Pan American Mgmt Co., 616 F.Supp. 1200, 1208 (D.Minn.1985) ("The potential economic interest of nonIndians in a contractual relationship with a tribe is not within the intended pur......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 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
    ...relationship with a tribe is not within the intended purview of [section 81]." United States ex rel. Shakopee v. Pan American, 616 F.Supp. 1200, 1208 (D.Minn.1985) (citing Leaf Tobacco Exporters Ass'n, Inc. v. Block, 749 F.2d 1106 (4th Cir.1984); Granville House, Inc. v. DHHS, 715 F.2d 1292......
  • Skokomish Indian Tribe v. United States, No. 11-658L
    • United States
    • Court of Federal Claims
    • March 11, 2014
    ...of tribes] were foremost on Congress' mind." U.S. ex rel. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. Pan American Management Co., 616 F. Supp. 1200, 1217 (D. Minn. 1985); see also U.S. ex rel. Steele v. Turn Key Gaming, Inc., 260 F.3d 971, 976-77 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing Cong. Globe, 41st Cong.......
  • 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
    ...the benefit of the Indians.' " Id. at 498 (quoting United 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 S......
  • 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
    ...on other grounds, 883 F.2d 890 (10th Cir.1989); United States ex rel. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. Pan American Mgmt Co., 616 F.Supp. 1200, 1208 (D.Minn.1985) ("The potential economic interest of nonIndians in a contractual relationship with a tribe is not within the intended pur......
  • 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