D'Ambra v. Maikshilo
12 Am. Tribal Law 210
Mohegan Gaming Disputes Trial ...2012Background
- Plaintiff amended complaint naming the Mohegan Tribe as a defendant in Count One, but continuing to name two Mohegan Tribal Police Officers and the Mohegan Tribal Police Department as defendants in other counts.
- Defendants move for summary judgment on three theories: individual immunity for Counts Two–Five, non-entity status of the MTDP under the Mohegan Torts Code for Count Six, and insufficiency of Count One against the Tribe.
- Court treats the motion as a dismissive device due to lack of affidavits or evidence, recognizing tribal sovereign immunity as jurisdictional and substantively central.
- Waivers of sovereign immunity under the Mohegan Torts Code are nuanced: limited waivers exist for Tribal Court actions (3-250(a)) and Gaming Disputes Court actions (3-250(b)); pleading and scope issues are key.
- Gaming Disputes Court and Tribal Court have distinct defendants and pleading requirements, with 3-131 guiding who may be sued in Gaming Disputes Court.
- Court grants summary judgment on Counts Two–Five, denies Count One, and denies Count Six without prejudice pending amendment to designate the Mohegan Tribe as the Defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether individual tribal officers are immune | Plaintiff argues individual officers fall within tribal immunity in Counts Two–Five. | Defendants contend sovereign immunity shields individual officers acting within authority. | Counts Two–Five granted; immunity applies to individuals. |
| Whether MTDP is a proper defendant under the Torts Code | Plaintiff contends MTDP may be sued under limited waivers in the Torts Code. | Defendant argues MTDP is not a Mohegan Tribal Entity or properly named under the limited waivers. | Count Six denied without prejudice; misnomer issue unresolved but not proper party under waivers. |
| Whether the Mohegan Tribe is properly sued on Count One | Plaintiff seeks relief under the Tribe’s liability under the Torts Code. | Tribe argues Count One is legally insufficient as pled. | Count One denied; proponents may amend for clarity. |
| Whether the procedural vehicle (summary judgment) was appropriate | Plaintiff contends the motion is premature or misapplied to permit amendment. | Defendants rely on lack of jurisdiction and improper use of summary judgment to challenge pleadings. | Judicial treatment as a motion to dismiss; summary judgment granted as to Counts Two–Five and denied as to Count One; Count Six remanded for amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) (sovereign immunity extends to tribal entities and officers)
- Kizis v. Morse Diesel International, Inc., Et Al., 260 Conn. 46 (2002) (tribal immunity and limitations; immunity extends to officials)
- Boucher Agency, Inc. v. Zimmer, 160 Conn. 404 (1971) (motion to dismiss and distinguishing summary judgment on pleadings)
- Larobina v. McDonald, 274 Conn. 394 (2005) (jurisdictional considerations and use of summary judgment to challenge pleadings)