Duluth v. Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, No. 13-3408 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseThe Fond du Luth Casino in Duluth opened in 1986 as a joint venture between the city and the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and is operated by the Band. The 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act led to restructuring of agreements between the Band and the city under a 1994 consent decree, under which the Band paid the city $75 million 1994-2009, 19 percent of gross revenues. The Band stopped making payments in 2009, believing that they violated IGRA as interpreted by the National Indian Gaming Commission. In 2011, the Gaming Commission issued a Notice of Violation, determining that the payments violated IGRA requirements that tribes have the sole proprietary interest in casinos and are their primary beneficiaries. The Commission ordered the Band not to resume payments. The Band sought relief under FRCP 60(b)(6) from payments in 2009-2011. The district court denied relief. The Eighth Circuit remanded and again reversed and remanded, finding that the district court failed to consider all of the factors identified in its 2013 order. The court must give proper weight to the congressional intent that tribes be the primary beneficiaries of Indian gaming and the fact that the city was on notice in 2009 of Gaming Commission policies.
Court Description: Murphy, Author, with Melloy and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. For the court's prior opinion in the case, see City of Duluth v. Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, 702 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2013). On remand from that earlier opinion, the district court failed to consider a factor - the congressional policy behind the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and the creation of the Gaming Commission, including Congress's express intent that the tribes be the primary beneficiaries of Indian casinos - in making its ruling, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.