City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 830 F. Supp. 2d 712

In 1986, Duluth and Fond du Lac Band formed a joint venture to operate a casino on tribal trust land, with the City receiving substantial revenues.
IGRA enacted in 1988 requires tribes to have sole proprietary interest and responsibility for gaming activities; the Act applies to pre-existing operations.
The Band and City settled disputes in 1994 with consent orders and agreements, approved by NIGC, restructuring the relationship and setting rent at 19% of gross revenues during the Initial Term (1994-2011) with a 25-year Extension Term (2011-2036).
Band paid rent 1994-2009; in 2009 it claimed overpayments due to misclassification of promotional expenses as operating costs and began withholding payments.
NIGC issued a Notice of Violation in July 2011 finding the 1994 Agreements violated IGRA; Band sought Rule 60(b) relief from related orders in 2011.
Court granted Rule 60(b) relief in part, lifting Band’s ongoing obligations while denying retroactive relief and preserving a trial on contra-revenues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of the NIGC NOV under IGRA	Band argues NOV is a valid exercise of NIGC authority on sole proprietary interest.	City contends IGRA does not allow review of contracts via NIGC and NOV was improper.	NOV valid; NIGC authority extends to contracts under IGRA in these circumstances.
Rule 60(b)(5) relief—prospective relief effect	Band seeks modification because law changed; relief warranted for prospective enforcement.	City asserts not all sought relief is permissible; need tailored modification.	Relief granted in part for prospective relief; some obligations excused going forward due to changed law.
Retroactive relief under Rule 60(b)(5) or 60(b)(6)	Band seeks refund of past rents and retroactive adjustments.	City argues retroactive relief conflicts with final judgment and settled consent decree.	Retroactive relief denied; Rule 60(b)(5) and 60(b)(6) do not permit retroactive reversal of completed payments.
Relief from arbitration obligation for Extension Term	Band argues arbitration regarding rent rate for 2011-2036 should be excused to comply with NOV.	City contends arbitration clause remains enforceable unless specifically disallowed by NOV.	Band relieved from arbitrating rate for Extension Term; arbitration obligation excused as inconsistent with NOV and overall noncompliant contract.

Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, Ltd., 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008) (2710 scope limits contracts vs. tribal regulations)
Catskill Dev., L.L.C. v. Park Place Entm’t Corp., 547 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2008) (agency approval and contractual arrangements treated; scope of review)
Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (U.S. 1992) (flexible standard for modifying consent decrees; equity-based relief)
United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106 (U.S. 1932) (grievous wrong standard for modifications before Rufo)
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1997) (intervening law can warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(5))
Aguilar v. Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (U.S. 1985) (Establishment Clause context cited for changes in law-based relief)
NLRB v. Weingarten, 420 U.S. 251 (U.S. 1975) (agency interpretation through adjudication permitted evolution)
Iron Workers v. NLRB, 434 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1978) (agency can change its mind within statutory authority)