Appellate Case: 12-5134 Document: 01018959896 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 1 CASE NOS. 12-5134/5136 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT STATE OF OKLAHOMA, ) ) Appellee/Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) (1) TIGER HOBIA, as Town King ) and member of the Kialegee Tribal ) Town Business Committee; et al., ) ) Appellants/Defendants. ) On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma The Honorable Chief Judge Gregory K. Frizzell N.D. No. 4:12-cv-00054-GKF-TLW APPELLANTS' CONSOLIDATED OPENING BRIEF Martha L. King, OK Bar No. 30786 Dennis J. Whittlesey FREDERICKS PEEBLES & Dickinson Wright PLLC MORGAN LLP 1875 Eye Street, Suite 1200 1900 Plaza Drive Washington, DC 20006 Louisville, Colorado 80027-2314 Telephone: (202) 659-6928 Telephone: (303) 673-9600 Attorney for Florence Development Attorney for Tiger Hobia, as Town Partners, LLC King and member of the Kialegee Tribal Town Business Committee; Thomas Givens, as 1st Warrior and member of the Kialegee Tribal Town Business Committee; John Doe Nos. 1- 7; and Kialegee Tribal Town, a federally chartered corporation Oral Argument is requested. Appellate Case: 12-5134 Document: 01018959896 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................ iii-ix PRIOR OR RELATED APPEALS ........................................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES ..................................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................... 4 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................. 6 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 7 I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DISMISS CLAIMS AGAINST THE TRIBE, ITS OFFICIALS, AND THE CORPORATION ON THE BASIS OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY……….................................................................................7 II. THE TRIBE WAS INDISPENSABLE AND COULD NOT BE JOINED……………………………………………………………13 A. The 19(b) Determination Is Appealable As A Collateral Order ..........................................................................................14 B. The 19(b) Determination Is Reviewable Under Pendent Appellate Jurisdiction………………………………………...14 C. The District Court Erred In Ruling That The Defendants' Perseonal Interests Were Virtually Identical To The Interests of The Tribe ...............................................................................16 D. The District Court Erred In Not Dismissing the State's Action Under 19(b) ………………………………......…. …..18 E. The District Court Erred In Failing To Consider The Indispensabililty of The Muscogee Creek Nation ……...…...18 III. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN EXERCISING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION ..................................................................19 A. The Complaint Did Not Allege Class III Gaming Activities Under IGRA .............................................................19 B. The Complaint Did Not Allege "Indian Lands" Under IGRA .........................................................................................22 C. The Complaint Did Not State A Claim Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331……………………………………………...24 i Appellate Case: 12-5134 Document: 01018959896 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 3 IV. THE STATE LACKED STANDING UNDER IGRA……………… 24 A. The State Did Not Show Injury in Fact .....................................26 B. The State Did Not Show Causation…………………………...32 C. The State Did Not Show Redressability ....................................32 V. THE STATE LACKED STANDING UNDER THE COMPACT .......33 VI. NO PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD HAVE ISSUED …36 A. The Factors ................................................................................36 1. Irreparable Harm……………………………….…...……. 37 2. Relative Weight of The Harms… ………………………. 39 3. Success On The Merits………… …………………….. …40 a) The State's Complaint Raised Issues That Were Too Uncertain To Warrant A Preliminary Injunection………………………………………….…41 b) The District Court Abused Its Discretion By Characterizing The Tribe As A "Subset of The Muscogee Creek Nation……………………………... .42 c) The District Court Abused Its Discretion By Adding "Tribal Relationship" To The Statutory Requirements Of IGRA……………………..44 d) The Facts And Law Supported A Finding of Dual Tribal Jurisdiction ……………………………….47 e) Tribal Jurisdiction Does Not Derive From Federal Authority………………………………………51 f) The Tribe Exercises Governmental Control Over the Allotment…………………………………….52 g) The Heigtened Evidentiary Standard ………………....53 1. The Status Quo ………………………………….....54 CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................56 STATEMENT OF COUNSEL AS TO ORAL ARGUMENT ...........................56 ADDENDUM PURSUANT TO 10th CIRCUIT RULE 28.2 …………………58 ii Appellate Case: 12-5134 Document: 01018959896 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases 1mage Software, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds Co., 459 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 2006) ...............................................................................19 610 F.3d at 1148 .......................................................................................................14 Abbott Labs v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) .................................................................................................34 Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, 458 U.S. 592 (1982) .......................................................................................... 29, 30 Am. Atheists, Inc. v. Davenport, 637 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................25 Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (2006) .......................................................................................... 19, 20 Berrey v. Asarco Inc., 439 F.3d 636 (10th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................... 8 Brandon v. Holt, 469 U.S. 464 ............................................................................................................... 9 Breakthrough Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort, 629 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010) ...........................................................................9, 15 Burrell v. Armijo, 456 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................. 8 California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) .................................................................................................43 Cash Advance & Preferred Cash Loans v. State, 242 P.3d 1099 (Colo. 2010) .....................................................................................10 Cherokee Nation of Okla. v. Babbitt, 117 F.3d 1489 (D.C. Cir. 1997) ...............................................................................42 Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 830 F.Supp 523(D.S.D. 1993), ................................................................... 52, 53, 55 Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197 (11th Cir. 1989) ...............................................................................28 Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. Norton, 248 F.3d 993 (10th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................15 Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. Hogen, 704 F. Supp. 2d 269(W.D.N.Y. 2010) .....................................................................22 Crowe & Dunlevy, P.C. v. Stidam, 640 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................. 7 iii Appellate Case: 12-5134 Document: 01018959896 Date Filed: 11/30/2012 Page: 5 Davis ex rel. Davis v. U.S., 343 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2003) ...............................................................................13 Davis v. U.S., 192 F.3d 951 (10th Cir. 1999) .......................................................................... 13, 16 Devon Energy Prod. Co., L.P. v. Mosaic Potash Carlsbad, Inc., 693 F.3d 1195 n.10 (10th Cir. 2012) .......................................................................20 Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) ...................................................................................................26 Direx Israel, Ltd. v. Breakthrough Med. Corp., 952 F.2d 802 (4th Cir. 1991) ...................................................................................41 Fletcher v. United States, 116 F.3d 1315 (10th Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................8, 17 Flood v. ClearOne Commc'ns, Inc., 618 F.3d 1110 (10th Cir. 2010) ...............................................................................36 Florida v. Seminole Tribe of Florida, 181 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 1999) ...............................................................................22 Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U.S. 230 (1907) .......................................................................................... 27, 28 Gilmore v. Weatherford, 694 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2012) ...............................................................................24 Greater Yellowstone