City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 977 F. Supp. 2d 944

Background

The City of Duluth and the Fond du Lac Band entered a joint-venture casino agreement in 1986; IGRA (1988) requires tribes to have “sole proprietary interest” in Indian gaming.
The Band sued in 1989; after NIGC review the parties negotiated new 1994 Agreements (incorporated into a consent decree) that the NIGC initially approved; the Band paid the City substantial rent under those agreements through 2009.
The Band withheld rent beginning in 2009 claiming certain expenses offset gross revenue; the City sued to enforce the 1994 Agreements; the district court found the Band barred by res judicata from challenging the consent decree and ordered arbitration on future-term issues.
In July 2011 the NIGC issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) reversing its earlier view and declaring provisions of the 1994 Agreements violative of IGRA, ordering cessation of performance; the Band moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to dissolve the consent decree and for retrospective relief.
The district court granted prospective relief (Rule 60(b)(5)) but denied retrospective relief for unpaid 2009–2011 rent; the Eighth Circuit affirmed prospective relief but reversed and remanded the Rule 60(b)(6) retrospective question for further factored analysis.
On remand the district court again denied Rule 60(b)(6) relief for the 2009–2011 period, concluding the circumstances were not sufficiently extraordinary to vacate the executed consent decree; it also denied the City’s motion to stay as moot and ordered proceedings on contra-revenues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether retrospective relief under Rule 60(b)(6) should be granted for unpaid rent (2009–2011)	The City: uphold consent decree; changes in law generally not retroactive; finality and reliance weigh against relief	The Band: NIGC NOV changed law and made continued performance illegal; extraordinary circumstances justify vacatur and recovery	Denied — relief under 60(b)(6) not warranted for 2009–2011; change in NIGC position alone insufficient; decree execution and party reliance weigh against vacatur
Whether the NIGC NOV qualifies as an "extraordinary" change in law for Rule 60(b)(6) purposes	The City: NOV is a change but does not retroactively invalidate past payments; not enough for retrospective relief	The Band: NOV directly contradicts prior NIGC approval, making the decree illegal to continue or obey	NOV is a significant change and closely related to the decree, but by itself insufficient to constitute extraordinary circumstances for retroactive relief
Effect of parties’ voluntary agreement and prior NIGC endorsement of the 1994 Agreements	The City: parties and NIGC knowingly approved agreement; reliance justifies finality	The Band: voluntariness is irrelevant because the agreement is now illegal under IGRA	The court held voluntariness and initial NIGC endorsement weigh heavily against granting 60(b)(6) relief
Whether the City had notice that NIGC views might change (relevance to retroactivity)	The City: prior advisory letters differ factually and the City reasonably relied on approval	The Band: NIGC advisory letters and public materials put the City on notice that NIGC stance could change	Court found City was on notice (factor favoring relief) but it was outweighed by other factors; overall denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (discusses modification of consent decrees and Rule 60 relief)
Klapprott v. United States, 335 U.S. 601 (standards for extraordinary equitable relief under Rule 60)
Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193 (denial of Rule 60 relief where party made deliberate, counseled choice)
Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204 (retroactivity of administrative rulemaking)
Phelps v. Alameida, 569 F.3d 1120 (Rule 60(b)(6) as equitable power; factors for extraordinary relief)
Ritter v. Smith, 811 F.2d 1398 (factors for Rule 60(b)(6) relief)
Collins v. City of Wichita, 254 F.2d 837 (refusal to reopen executed judgments after intervening change in law)
City of Duluth v. Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 702 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2013) (mandate reversing denial of retrospective Rule 60(b)(6) relief and remanding for factor-based analysis)