City of Duluth v. Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
702 F.3d 1147
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- In 1986 the City of Duluth and Fond du Lac Band entered a gambling casino agreement; IGRA (1988) requires sole proprietary interest and exclusive control by the tribe in Indian gaming.
- NIGC determined the 1994 consent-decree-embedded terms violated IGRA and approved a 1994 agreement contingent on IGRA compliance; the district court incorporated this into a consent decree on June 22, 1994.
- From 1994–2009 the Band paid the City ~ $75 million in rent under the decree; later argued some expenses should offset revenue, claiming overpayments.
- In 2011 the NIGC issued a notice of violation declaring 1994 decree provisions violated IGRA, ordering Band to cease performance or face sanctions; Band moved under Rule 60(b) for dissolution.
- The district court relieved the Band of ongoing obligations for 2011–2036 but denied retrospective relief; appeal followed on both the prospective dissolution and retrospective rent relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 60(b)(5) allows prospective relief due to a change in law by a federal agency. | Band argues NIGC's 2011 IGRA interpretation changed law warranting modification. | City contends APA review governs; no change in circumstances. | Yes; agency’s change in law supports prospective relief. |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(6) permits retrospective relief for rent withheld 2009–2011. | Band seeks retrospective relief under 60(b)(6) for payments under an invalidated decree. | City argues 60(b)(6) should not apply when 60(b)(5) is implicated and retroactive relief is limited. | Yes; 60(b)(6) relief is available and remanded for further consideration. |
| Whether the district court erred in relying on res judicata to bar the Band's challenge to the decree's legality. | Band argues the NIGC’s later position undermines res judicata. | City maintains previous judgment forecloses challenge. | Not central to the 60(b) ruling; decision focused on relief under 60(b). |
Key Cases Cited
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1992) (consent decree modification when circumstances have changed)
- NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1975) (agency adjudicative decisions can define terms)
- Atkinson v. Prudential Prop. Co., 43 F.3d 367 (8th Cir. 1994) (standard for abuse of discretion in Rule 60(b) rulings)
- Menz v. New Holland N. Am., Inc., 440 F.3d 1002 (8th Cir. 2006) (abuse of discretion in weighing Rule 60(b) factors)
- Hess v. Cockrell, 281 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2002) (retrospective relief under Rule 60(b) may be available when appropriate)
- Liljeberg v. Health Serv. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847 (U.S. 1988) (limitations on Rule 60(b) relief; extraordinary remedy 60(b)(6))
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (U.S. 1995) (limits on overturning court orders; due process considerations)
- In re Pacific Far East Lines, Inc., 889 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1989) (retrospective relief under 60(b)(6) when new statutory framework emerges)
- Zimmerman v. In re Zimmerman, 869 F.2d 1126 (8th Cir. 1989) (exceptional circumstances; factors for 60(b)(6) relief)