Contour Spa at the Hard Rock, Inc. v. Seminole Tribe of Florida
692 F.3d 1200
11th Cir.2012Background
- Contour sued Seminole Tribe over a long-term spa lease for property at the Hard Rock Hotel in Hollywood, Florida.
- The lease was never approved by the Secretary of the Interior, though 25 U.S.C. § 81 and 25 C.F.R. § 162.604(a) applied to it.
- Contour alleges the Tribe misrepresented lease status and opened the spa in May 2004 without valid approval.
- BIA’s May 27, 2004 letter identified deficiencies and required resubmission for Secretary approval that never occurred.
- Contour continued operations until March 17, 2010 when the Tribe closed the spa and evicted Contour.
- Contour amended to include federal ICRA and leasing-act claims and state-law counts; the district court dismissed the federal claims for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does removal waive tribal sovereign immunity under Lapides? | Contour argues Tribe’s removal waived immunity. | Tribe contends Lapides does not apply to tribal immunity and removal. | Removal does not waive tribal immunity. |
| Does ICRA create an implied cause of action against a tribe? | Contour seeks ICRA-based relief against the Tribe. | Court precedent bars suits under ICRA due to tribal immunity. | ICRA does not authorize suits against tribes; immunity bars relief. |
| Can equitable estoppel defeat tribal immunity where the lease is invalid for lack of Secretary approval? | Contour urges estoppel due to Tribe’s misrepresentations. | Estoppel cannot circumvent a federally invalid contract or tribal immunity. | Equitable estoppel cannot override tribal immunity in this context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (U.S. 2002) (removal to federal court can waive state immunity in state-law claims context)
- Kiowa Tribe of Okla. v. Mfg. Techs., Inc., 523 U.S. 751 (U.S. 1998) (tribal immunity is federal-law matter; not coextensive with state immunity)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1978) (congressional waiver of immunity must be unequivocally expressed; ICRA does not imply waiver)
- Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Eng’g, 476 U.S. 877 (U.S. 1986) (tribal immunity is a matter of federal law and not interchangeable with states)
- U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. United States, 309 U.S. 506 (U.S. 1940) (foreign sovereign immunity framework informs tribal immunity considerations)
- Dry Creek Lodge, Inc. v. Arapahoe & Shoshone Tribes, 623 F.2d 682 (10th Cir. 1980) (implied ICRA remedies framework rejected when tribal immunity applies)
- A.K. Mgmt. Co. v. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, 789 F.2d 785 (9th Cir. 1986) (contractual waivers of immunity not enforceable where contract void for lack of BIA approval)
- Potawatomi, United States v. Potawatomi (U.S. 1991) (injunctive relief against tribal entities does not automatically waive immunity)