T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary6,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT E DDI E S ANT ANA,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 5210 v . N. D. Ok l a h o ma CH E RO KE E CA S I NO; OS AGE CA S I NO; CR E E K NAT I ON C AS I NO,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D. C. No . 0 6 - CV - 5 1 3 - E A)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s courthas det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. O n S e p tem b e r 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , A p p e llan t E d d ie S a n tan a filed a c o m p lain t in fede r al di s tr i ctcourtw her ei n he as s er t ed D efe ndant s us e bi l l boar ds and other form s of adve r t i s i ng t o ent i ce i ndi vi dual s t o gambl e att hei rcas i nos . Sant anaW e no t e S antana has al so fai l ed to al l ege thatt he am ou nt i n co ntr ov ers y 1 e x c e e d s $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 ; Laughl i n v. Km ar tC or p. , 50 F. 3d 871, 873 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng thatt he r equi s i t e amounti n contr over s yand the exi s t ence of di ver s i tym us tbe affi r m at i vel yes t abl i s hed i n the pl eadi ng of the p a rt ys e e k in g to in v o k e ju ri s d ic tio n ).

- 2- a lleg e s h e is c u rre n tlyb e in g tre a ted fo r a g a m b lin g a d d ictio n . H e a ss e rts D efen dan t s’ adv ert i si ng un fai rl yt arget s i nd i vidual s w i th g am bli ng add i ct i on s, r es ul t i ng i n D efe ndant s ’ unj us tenr i chment . Sant ana s eeks damages i n the a m o u n t o f

$ 9 0 0 0 , a s u m h e a lle g e s h e h a s lo s t g a m b lin g s in c e 2 0 0 2 . S an tana b ase d h is cl aim s o n the In d ian G am ing R eg u lat o ryA ct (“IG R A ”), 25 U . S. C . § 2701, and as s ert ed the fe der al cour thad s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1331. T he di s tr i ctcour t , how ever , di s m i s s ed the s ui tforl ack o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , n o t i n g S a n t a n a wa s a t t e mp t i n g t o p u r s u e s t a t e l a w t o r tc l a i ms a g a in st D e fe n d a n ts th ro u g h th e IG R A a n d c o n c lu d in g th e IG R A d o e s n o t co n tain a p ri v a te ri g h t o f

a c tio n in fa v o r o f

a n in d iv id u a l. See Har tm an v. K i ckapoo Tribe G a m ingC o m m ’n , 3 1 9 F . 3 d 1 2 3 0 , 1 2 3 2 -33 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) (“[N ]ow h ere does I G R A expr es s l yauthor i ze pr i vat e i ndi vi dual s t o s ue di r ect l yunderthe s ta tu te fo r fa ilu re o f

a tr ib e , a s ta te , o r t h e N IG C to c o m p ly w ith its p ro v is io n s .” ). T he courtfur therconcl uded Sant ana c oul d notr el yon di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on s i nce al l part i es ar e ci t i zens of O kl ahoma forpurpos es of 28 U . S. C . § 1332. 1 T hi s courtr evi ew s a di s m i s s al forl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on de n o v o . See U. S. Wes t, Inc. v. Tris tani , 1 8 2 F .3 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 6 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ).- 3-

B as ed on ourr evi ew of the r ecor d, the pl eadi ngs , and the ar gum ent s as s er t ed by S a n tan a in h is a p p e llate b rie f, w e c o n c lu d e th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r w h e n it di s m i s s ed Sant ana’ s compl ai ntforl ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on. A ccor di ngl y , w e affi rm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f S a n ta n a ’s a c tio n . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge