785 F.3d 1207
8th Cir.2015Background
- Fond du Lac Band opened Fond du Luth Casino in 1986 as a joint venture with the City of Duluth; Band owns the property and operates the casino.
- Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988, requiring tribes to have the "sole proprietary interest" and be the "primary beneficiaries" of Indian gaming.
- A 1994 consent decree (approved by the NIGC) required the Band to pay the City 19% of gross revenues as "rent"; the Band paid ~$75 million from 1994–2009.
- The Band ceased payments in August 2009 after NIGC advisory letters indicated such arrangements likely violated IGRA; NIGC issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) in July 2011 ordering cessation.
- The Band sought Rule 60(b)(6) relief from liability for withheld payments (2009–2011); district court denied retrospective relief, this Court reversed in 2013 and remanded with six factors to consider.
- On remand the district court considered only five of the six factors (omitting congressional intent that tribes be primary beneficiaries); the Band appealed and this panel reverses and remands for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) can provide retrospective relief for payments withheld 2009–2011 | Band: change in law (NIGC position and NOV) is an exceptional circumstance justifying 60(b)(6) relief | City: parties voluntarily agreed to the decree; relief is inappropriate after long compliance | Court previously ruled retrospective relief can be available and remanded for consideration of factors |
| Whether district court adequately considered Congress's intent behind IGRA | Band: district court must weigh IGRA's express objective that tribes be primary beneficiaries strongly in favor of relief | City: IGRA also contemplates local government benefits; congressional policy should not favor Band heavily | Court: district court abused discretion by failing to consider congressional intent; must reconsider and give it significant weight |
| Relevance of NIGC's prior endorsement and later NOV | Band: NOV and changed NIGC position justify relief; City had notice of shifting NIGC views by 2009 | City: NIGC previously endorsed the 1994 agreement and cannot punish compliance with a court order | Court: NIGC's enforcement role and changed position are relevant factors to weigh on remand |
| Whether district court considered all remand factors as directed | Band: remand required consideration of six enumerated factors | City: (implicit) district court's five-factor analysis sufficient | Court: district court failed to address one required factor (congressional intent) and thus abused discretion; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 702 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2013) (prior panel opinion directing factors for remand)
- In re Pac. Far E. Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (change in law can justify retrospective Rule 60(b)(6) relief)
- Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431 (2004) (consent decrees must protect federal interests and further federal law)
- Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (consent decrees may be modified when obligations become impermissible under federal law)