98 F. Supp. 3d 55
D. Mass.2015Background
- Dispute between Commonwealth of Massachusetts and Wampanoag Tribe over regulatory jurisdiction for civil gaming on Settlement Lands on Martha’s Vineyard.
- Settlement Agreement (1983) purportedly kept Commonwealth civil/criminal jurisdiction over Settlement Lands and barred tribal sovereign authority there.
- 43 years later the Tribe sought to operate a gaming facility; Tribe lacked a Massachusetts gaming license.
- IGRA and NIGC process recognized tribal gaming authority; NIGC approved the Tribe’s gaming ordinance; Tribe announced plans to open gaming on Settlement Lands.
- Massachusetts filed suit in state court; Tribe removed to federal court; AGHCA and Town of Aquinnah intervened; Tribe moved to dismiss intervenor and all complaints for sovereign immunity and failure to join the United States; Tribe later added counterclaims against Commonwealth and three Commonwealth officials.
- Court proceedings address sovereign immunity, issue preclusion from Shellfish Hatchery, Rule 19 joinder of the United States, and the Tribe’s counterclaims including Ex parte Young and injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity and Shellfish Hatchery preclusion | AGHCA argues Tribe waived immunity via Shellfish Hatchery ruling. | Tribe asserts immunity, argues Shellfish Hatchery does not bar its defense. | Shellfish Hatchery precludes immunity defense; Tribe waived immunity as to all Settlement Lands. |
| Failure to state a claim against AGHCA | Shellfish Hatchery shows enforceability/binding effect of Settlement Agreement; waiver supports claim. | Immunity blocks AGHCA claim; lack of binding agreement against Tribe. | AGHCA claim not barred; preclusion applies; Shellfish Hatchery supports pleading viability. |
| Rule 19 joinder of the United States as a required party | United States has interest in lands and gaming; should be joined. | United States not necessary; Tribe adequately represents interests; no complete relief issue. | United States not a required party under Rule 19; joinder denied. |
| Cognizability of counterclaims against Commonwealth under sovereign immunity | Counterclaims seek declaratory/injunctive relief against Commonwealth; sovereign immunity bars. | Ex parte Young allows prospective relief against state officials; declaratory relief within defense allowed. | Counterclaims against Commonwealth dismissed on sovereign immunity grounds. |
| Ex parte Young and injunctive relief against third-party officials | Counterclaims allege ongoing interference with Tribe’s rights; injunctive relief appropriate. | Official capacity claims require prospective relief; standing concerns. | Counterclaims against individual officials cognizable under Ex parte Young; injunctive-relief claim meets standing and will proceed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, 498 U.S. 505 (U.S. 1991) (tribal sovereign immunity requires clear waiver or congressional abrogation)
- Shellfish Hatchery Corp. v. Wampanoag Aquinnah Shellfish Hatchery Corp., 443 Mass. 1 (Mass. 2004) ( Shellfish Hatchery held waiver of immunity under Settlement Agreement for land-use actions)
- Kobrin v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 444 Mass. 837 (Mass. 2005) (issue preclusion elements in Massachusetts law)
- Alba v. Raytheon Co., 441 Mass. 836 (Mass. 2004) (preclusion effect for prior adjudication findings)
- Rein, Grella v. Salem Five Cent Sav. Bank, 42 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1994) (subsidiary findings may give rise to issue preclusion)
- Janney Montgomery Scott, Inc. v. Shepard Niles, Inc., 11 F.3d 399 (3d Cir. 1993) (requirement of direct and immediate effect for Rule 19 analysis)