5:15-cv-01379
W.D. Okla.Apr 18, 2016Background
- The Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma executed the State Model Tribal Gaming Compact (2005) and submitted it to the Department of the Interior; the Compact defines "covered games."
- In September 2015 the Tribe notified the State it intended to offer internet gaming as a "covered game" under the Compact; the State referred the dispute to arbitration.
- The parties submitted the question to a mutually selected arbitrator: whether internet-based covered games originating on tribal lands, when players are located entirely outside Oklahoma/US territories during the transaction, are authorized by the Compact.
- The arbitrator issued an award on November 24, 2015 finding in the Tribe’s favor; Part 12 of the Compact provides for arbitration and federal-court enforcement and contains mutual waivers of immunity.
- The Tribe moved for summary judgment in federal court to certify and enforce the Arbitration Award; the State did not dispute material facts and agreed certification was proper.
- The District Court granted the Tribe’s motion, finding no genuine issue of material fact and ordering certification of the November 24, 2015 Arbitration Award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration award interpreting the Compact should be certified/enforced by federal court | Award is enforceable under Part 12; parties waived immunity and consented to federal-court enforcement | State did not contest facts and agreed certification is proper | Court granted summary judgment and certified the Arbitration Award |
| Whether arbitration is the proper forum to interpret Compact terms | Compact dispute-resolution clause requires arbitration; arbitrator’s interpretation governs | State referred matter to arbitration and did not dispute arbitrability | Court treated arbitration as the appropriate forum and relied on award for enforcement |
| Whether there are genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment | No disputed material facts; record supports enforcement | State raised no affirmative defenses or disputed facts | Court found no genuine issues and granted summary judgment |
| Whether sovereign immunity or Eleventh Amendment bars enforcement | Compact’s Part 12 contains written waiver of immunity and consent to suit | State waived immunity in Compact and did not raise Eleventh Amendment defense | Court enforced waiver and did not permit immunity/Eleventh Amendment defenses to block enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hobia, 775 F.3d 1204 (10th Cir. 2014) (interpreting Compact arbitration/enforcement clause and tribe’s ability to operate Class III gaming)
- Choctaw Nation v. State, 724 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (W.D. Okla. 2010) (upholding dispute-resolution clauses in gaming compacts and arbitration as forum to interpret Compact language)
- Mustang Fuel Corp. v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co., 561 F.2d 202 (10th Cir. 1977) (standard for granting summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (movant’s initial burden at summary judgment)