Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-13-03408/USCOURTS-ca8-13-03408-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Duluth
Appellee
Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Appellant

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-3408

___________________________

City of Duluth

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: November 12, 2014

 Filed: May 8, 2015

____________

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

____________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

The Fond du Luth Casino in downtown Duluth, Minnesota opened in 1986 as

a joint venture between the City of Duluth and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake

Superior Chippewa and istoday a profitable tourist attraction owned and operated by

the Band. Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) in 1988

which changed the legal framework underlying the development of American Indian

Appellate Case: 13-3408 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273094 
casinos such as the Fond du Luth Casino. This new statute led to restructuring of the

prior casino agreements between the Band and the City under a 1994 consent decree

issued by United States DistrictJudge Paul A. Magnuson. Pursuant to this decree the

Band paid the City $75 million in the period from 1994 through early 2009

amounting to 19 percent of gross revenues. TheBand stopped making such payments

in 2009 after concluding that they violated IGRA as interpreted by the National

Indian Gaming Commission. 

In July 2011, the Gaming Commission issued a Notice of Violation regarding

the Fond du Luth Casino after determining that the Band’s payments to the City

violated IGRA requirements that tribes are to have the sole proprietary interest in

casinos and are to be their primary beneficiaries. The Gaming Commission ordered

the Band not to resume payments to the City or face fines and closure of the casino. 

Shortly thereafter the Band sought relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

60(b)(6) from any obligation for similar payments in the period from 2009 to 2011. 

The district court denied relief in November 2011, and the Band appealed. We

reversed in January 2013 and remanded for the district court to consider six factors

relevant to the question of whether the Band was entitled to the relief it had

requested. City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 702 F.3d

1147, 1155 (8th Cir. 2013). On remand the district court failed to consider all of the

factors identified in our January 2013 order, and the Band appeals. We reverse and

remand.

I.

The relevant facts underlying the issues in this case are discussed in detail in

our most recent opinion in this case, City of Duluth, 702 F.3d at 1150-52, and we

briefly summarize some of that history here. Although the casino was opened as a

joint venture, in 1988 Congress passed IGRA which requires that Indian tribes have

the "sole proprietary interest" in Indian gaming activity. 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(A). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 13-3408 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273094 
The Band then sought federal declaratory and injunctive relief in the District of

Minnesota on the basis that its 1986 agreement with the City of Duluth did not

comply with IGRA. The district court directed the Band to take this question to the

National Indian Gaming Commission, the agency tasked by Congress with the

responsibility to interpret and enforce IGRA. See 25 U.S.C. § 2706. In 1993, the

Gaming Commission ruled that the 1986 casino agreement violated IGRA, but it

allowed the parties to negotiate a new contract before beginning any enforcement

action.

The agreement reached between the Band and the City in 1994 was

subsequently approved by the Gaming Commission and then incorporated into the

consent decree by the district court which retained jurisdiction over its enforcement. 

Although the Band owns the casino building and the land on which it is located is

reservation land, the decree provided in relevant part that the Band would pay 19%

of the casino's gross revenues to the City as "rent" from 1994 to 2011. A rental rate

for the years 2011 to 2036 would be negotiated later. Such payments to the City had

been characterized as "rent" in a sublease agreement. Before the casino opened in

1986 the Band leased it to a commission made up of representatives of the City and

of the Band. The 1994 decree provided that this commission would sublease the

casino to the Band and assign the rent payments to the City. The Band paid $75

million to the City in such rent from 1994 to 2009.

In accordance with a resolution passed by its governing body, the Band stopped

making rent payments on August 6, 2009. Prior to that resolution the Gaming

Commission had issued advisory letters stating that casino arrangements similar to

that of the Band violated IGRA's sole proprietary interest rule. The City then

responded by filing its breach of contract suit in the federal district court in

September 2009. The Band answered that certain terms in the 1994 decree were

invalid because they did not comply with IGRA provisions as interpreted by the

Gaming Commission.

-3-

Appellate Case: 13-3408 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273094 
The Band also sought administrative review of the 1994 agreement by the

Gaming Commission. On July 12, 2011 the Gaming Commission issued a Notice of

Violation ("NOV") after concluding that the 1994 agreement violated IGRA because

"[t]ribes, not third parties, are to possess the sole proprietary interest in and

responsibility for the gaming activity and to be the primary beneficiaries of that

activity." See 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710(b)(2)(A); 2702(2). The Commission ordered the

Band to cease performance under the agreement with the City or face sanctions

including fines and closure of the casino.

Subsequently the Band moved in the district court for Rule 60(b) relief from

making past and future rent payments. In response the district court granted relief

from making future payments but denied it for the payments withheld from 2009

through 2011. The Band appealed, and we reversed the denial of Rule 60(b) relief

for the 2009 to 2011 payments. City of Duluth, 702 F.3d at 1155. We determined

that the district court had abused its discretion "[t]o the extent [its] decision . . . relied

on an assumption that retrospective relief" was not available under Rule 60(b)(6) for

claims partially covered by Rule 60(b)(5). Id. A change in the law could "represent

so significant an alteration in circumstances as to justify both prospective and

retrospective relief from the obligations of a court order." Id. at 1154; see In re Pac.

Far E. Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1989).

Our opinion specified several factors that the district court should consider on

remand. Factors that might disfavor relief included the following:

Both the Band and the City voluntarily agreed to the provisions

incorporated in the 1994 decree. Moreover, this agreement wasinitially

endorsed by the NIGC [Gaming Commission]. While the NIGC had the

power to change its position, it does not have the authority to punish a

party for obeying a court order.

-4-

Appellate Case: 13-3408 Page: 4 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273094 
City of Duluth, 702 F.3d at 1155. We also noted "factors favoring relief to be

considered" by the district court on remand:

Congress vested in the NIGC authority for matters related to the

regulation of Indian casinos, see 25 U.S.C. § 2706, in order to ensure

that the primary beneficiaries ofIndian gaming operations are to be

the tribes themselves, see 25 U.S.C. § 2702(2). By the time the Band

began withholding rent in 2009, the City was on notice that the NIGC's

views on the validity of the 1994 agreement might well have

changed. . . . The district court abused its discretion by not examining

all the relevant factors including whether the NOV issued by the NIGC

on July 12, 2011, changing its earlier position and ordering the Band to

cease performance under the consent decree, was an "exceptional"

occurrence justifying 60(b)(6) relief.

Id. (emphasis added).

In sum, our opinion specified six factors for the district court to consider on

remand: (1) the parties' voluntary agreement to the 1994 decree; (2) the Gaming

Commission's initial endorsement of the 1994 agreement; (3) the Gaming

Commission's lack of authority to punish a party for obeying a court order; (4) the

congressional policy behind IGRA and the creation of the Gaming Commission,

including Congress's express intent that tribes be the primary beneficiaries of Indian

casinos; (5) that the City was on notice in 2009 of relevant changes in the Gaming

Commission’s views; and (6) that the July 12, 2011 NOV could be an "exceptional"

occurrence justifying relief.

Before denying any relief under Rule 60(b)(6) on remand, the district court

considered only five of the six factors we had identified in City of Duluth, 702 F.3d

at 1155. The Band appeals.

-5-

Appellate Case: 13-3408 Page: 5 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273094 
II.

We review the district court decision for abuse of discretion. City of Duluth,

702 F.3d at 1152. A district court abuses its discretion "when a relevant factor that

should have been given significant weight is not considered; when an irrelevant or

improper factor is considered and given significant weight; or when all proper factors

and no improper ones are considered, but the court commits a clear error of judgment

in weighing those factors," or when the court makes an error of law. Id.

The Band argues that the district court failed to consider "a relevant factor that

should have been given significant weight": that is, the intent of Congress "to ensure

that the primary beneficiaries of Indian gaming operations are to be the tribes

themselves." City of Duluth, 702 F.3d at 1155. We agree. The district court's

memorandumopinion did not discuss thisfundamental factorspecified in our remand

order.

IGRA explicitly defined the policies and goals which led to its enactment. 

Congress indicated that its intent upon passing IGRA was "to provide a statutory

basis for the regulation of gaming by an Indian tribe adequate . . . to ensure that the

Indian tribe isthe primary beneficiary of the gaming operation." 25 U.S.C. § 2702(2). 

The Gaming Commission was created "to protect such gaming as a means of

generating tribal revenue." 25 U.S.C. § 2702(3). The "primary beneficiary" rule

arose from Congress's aim "to promote tribal economic development, tribal selfsufficiency, and strong tribal government" which is "a principal goal of Federal

Indian policy." 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701(4), 2702(1). Congress has noted that for tribes,

gaming income "often means the difference between an adequate governmental

programand a skeletal programthat istotally dependent on Federal funding." S. Rep.

No. 100-446, at 3 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3071, 3072.

-6-

Appellate Case: 13-3408 Page: 6 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273094 
This congressional policy underlying IGRA and the creation of the Gaming

Commission are factors deserving significant weight in this case. Federal policy and

interests are particularly important in consent decrees. "Consent decrees entered in

federal court must be directed to protecting federal interests. . . [and] further[ing] the

objectives of [federal] law." Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 437 (2004). Such

decrees must "be modified if . . . one or more of the obligations placed upon the

parties has become impermissible under federal law." Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk

Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 388 (1992). Here, the Gaming Commission has determined

that rent payments to the City violated the IGRA requirements that a tribe be the sole

proprietor of a casino and also the primary beneficiary of gaming. Congress created

the Gaming Commission and gave it authority over IGRA's interpretation and

enforcement in order to protect such interests.

The City argues that congressional policy should not weigh strongly in the

Band's favor because IGRA specifies that Indian gaming revenues may also "help

fund operations of local government agencies," 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(B)(v). The

record here does not suggest that the "rent" provision in the 1994 decree was ever

intended solely to cover the cost of any city services provided to the casino such as

emergency calls. In its 2011 Notice of Violation letter, the Gaming Commission

found that the "rent" paid to the City from gross revenues had amounted to between

26.6 and 33.5 percent of the casino’s annual net profits. The record suggests that

such a large percentage of casino profits would be grossly disproportionate to the cost

of any city services for the casino. The record also indicates that property taxes (an

ordinary source of funding for local government operations) would have been

$180,930 in 2010 for a non Indian owner of such a casino property, far less than the

$6 million of "rent" payments to the City for that year. The City has provided almost

no evidence regarding the costs of any services to the casino, and at oral argument it

admitted that it had never calculated these costs. The record does indicate, however,

that the City has received substantial benefits from Indian gaming under the 1994

decree.

-7-

Appellate Case: 13-3408 Page: 7 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273094 
The district court abused its discretion on remand by failing to consider this

congressional policy and its intent that tribes be the primary beneficiaries of Indian

gaming. This factor was identified in our previous remand order, and the record

supports its significance in terms of the Band's request for Rule 60(b)(6) relief.

III.

We remand to the district court for its reconsideration of the Band's Rule

60(b)(6) motion and direct it to consider all of the factors outlined here and in our

prior remand order. Accordingly, the district court must give proper weight to the

congressional intent that tribes be the primary beneficiaries of Indian gaming as well

as other relevant factors we have previously identified. These include the facts that

the City was on notice in 2009 of relevant actions and policies of the Gaming

Commission and its warning in the 2011 Notice of Violation that the tribe would

violate IGRA by making further rent payments to the city. As discussed in our prior

City of Duluth opinion, such change in the governing law is also relevant to the

question of whether an exceptional circumstance compels a grant of Rule 60(b)(6)

relief. City of Duluth, 702 F.3d at 1154-55;see In re Pac. Far E. Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d

242 (9th Cir. 1989).

For the reasons stated, we reverse and remand for the district court's

reconsideration of the Band's Rule 60(b)(6) motion in accordance with this opinion

and the relevant law cited.

______________________________

-8-

Appellate Case: 13-3408 Page: 8 Date Filed: 05/08/2015 Entry ID: 4273094