Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction to bar defendants-Tribal Entities from proceeding against plaintiffs in tribal court action seeking declaration that bonds sold by defendants to plaintiffs were invalid under Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) as well as tribal law. Dist. Ct. could properly find that: (1) plaintiffs were not required to litigate bond dispute before tribal court prior to seeking redress in federal courts, where defendants had executed certain bond documents selecting non-tribal forum to resolve instant contractual dispute; and (2) defendants had waived sovereign immunity pursuant to waiver clauses in bond documents, even though defendants had claimed that entire bond transaction was product of fraudulent inducement. Ct. also rejected defendants’ claim that instant bond documents were void under IGRA as unapproved management contracts based on finding in prior lawsuit that other bonds documents had violated IGRA, where: (1) instant bond documents were only collateral to bond documents that had been viewed as unlawful management contract between parties; and (2) unlike bond documents in prior action, instant bond documents did not purport to reserve oversight over defendants’ casino operations. Also, under Montana, 450 US 544, tribal court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiffs, who were non-members of defendants’ tribe, where instant tribal action did not pertain to tribal self-government or control over tribe’s internal relations and did not seek redress for any of plaintiffs’ consensual activities on tribal land.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Jurisdiction