944 F. Supp. 2d 748
D. Ariz.2013Background
- Nation plans major Glendale-area casino on land within Glendale city outer boundaries; Plaintiffs challenge under IGRA and the 2002 Compact.
- Compact was negotiated 1999–2002, signed by Governor and Nation, approved by Interior 2003; its integration clause states it contains the entire agreement.
- Land acquired with Gila Bend/LRA funds; Interior took land into trust; Plaintiffs allege post-IGRA land acquisition not authorized for gaming.
- IGRA §2719(b)(1)(B)® provides after-acquired land settled via land claims can support gaming; dispute whether LRA land qualifies as such settlement.
- Litigation involves statutory interpretation, contract interpretation (Restatement §201), and whether any unwritten understandings survive the integrated Compact.
- Court grants summary judgment for Nation on most Compact-related claims; two §201(2) issues require briefing and trial depending on issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does IGRA settlement of a land claim apply to LRA land? | Plaintiffs: land claim settlement does not cover Glendale land acquired via LRA. | Nation: LRA land qualifies as settlement, thus IGRA §2719(b)(1)(B)(i) permits gaming. | Glendale land qualifies for gaming under IGRA §2719(b)(1)(B)(i). |
| What law governs interpretation of the Compact? | Cachil governs, federal law controls interpretation of IGRA compacts. | Arizona law governs contract interpretation; Restatement factors favor Arizona/State law. | Arizona law governs; apply Arizona parol evidence rule. |
| Is the Compact to be interpreted via Restatement §201(1) or (2)? | Plaintiffs claim §201(1)/(2) enforce an oral understanding banning Phoenix-area casinos. | Fully integrated contract limits use of §201 to align with writing; extrinsic evidence excluded. | §201(1) and §201(2) do not create enforceable oral terms; fully integrated contract controls. |
| Does the covenant of good faith and fair dealing bar Phoenix-area casino plans? | Nation breached covenant by planning Phoenix-area casino despite implied restrictions. | No reasonable expectation of a Phoenix-area ban; integration clause defeats claim. | Summary judgment for Nation on covenant claim. |
| Is promissory estoppel viable against sovereign immunity here? | Nation made promises relied upon by State to refrain from broader Phoenix-area restrictions. | Promissory estoppel not within §2710(d)(7)(A)(ii); immunity and contract-based analysis trump. | Promissory estoppel barred by sovereign immunity; not within the statutory waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cachil Dehe Band v. California, 618 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir.2010) (dictum on federal law governing IGRA compacts not controlling here)
- Long v. City of Glendale, 93 P.3d 519 (Ariz.Ct.App.2004) (parol evidence and integration in Arizona contract interpretation)
- Taylor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 854 P.2d 1134 (Ariz.1993) (parol evidence rule applied to interpretability of contracts)
- Nehmer v. DVA, 494 F.3d 846 (9th Cir.2007) (parol evidence and contract interpretation context)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S.1982) (takings/impact on property rights relevant to land claims)
- Kennewick Irr. Dist. v. U.S., 880 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir.1989) (federal law controls if United States is party to contract question)
- Idaho v. Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, 465 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir.2006) (contract interpretation in tribal contexts)
- Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.1997) (IGRA sovereign immunity/waiver context)