 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Doe v. Pueblo6/28/2005
i), there exists no express inclusion of, nor any indication of a discernable legislative intent to include, jurisdiction allocation or shifting in relation to a negligence claim such as Plaintiff's. The duty underlying Plaintiff's claims does not come within the scope of jurisdiction necessary for the enforcement of laws and regulations that are directly related to and necessary for licensing and regulation of Class III gaming activities.
Section 8 of the Compact pertains specifically to the protection of visitors to the Casino. Part (A) states a policy that the safety and protection of visitors is a priority, with the assurance that visitors with personal injury claims will have an effective remedy for obtaining fair and just compensation. The policy provision in Part (A) also contains the language at issue in this case regarding jurisdiction. Having an effective remedy does not necessarily require state court jurisdiction. Nothing in the record indicates that a visitor claimant cannot have an effective remedy through tribal court or arbitration as long as those processes provide due process. Part (C) of Section 8 is a limitations provision that appears to pertain to any claim that might be brought relating to the subjects in Section 8. Part (E) permits the visitor claimant to elect between a court of competent jurisdiction or arbitration, and Part (F) deals solely with arbitration. Parts (B) and (G) facilitate the policy in (A) by requiring Santa Clara to carry liability insurance. Part (D) facilitates effective relief through a limited waiver by Santa Clara of sovereign immunity and through an agreement that New Mexico law will apply. Part (H) is preventative in nature, requiring Santa Clara to conform to certain health, safety, and construction standards.
As indicated earlier, the pertinent language in Section 8(A) of the Compact is: a claim for bodily injury "may be brought in state district court . . . unless it is finally determined by a state or federal court that IGRA does not permit the shifting of jurisdiction over visitors' personal injury suits to state court." Thus, among the several aspects of the safety and protection purposes of Section 8, Part (A) permits a visitor to bring a personal injury claim in state court, but if the state court in that case or perhaps in another case determines that the IGRA does not permit the tribe to shift jurisdiction over such visitor personal injury suits to state court, then the visitor's personal injury claim in state court fails for lack of jurisdiction. The parties to the Compact expected the issue to be litigated.
Section 8 uses "state court jurisdiction" in only one place, and that is in the clause quoted above. Elsewhere, the section uses, simply, "court" and "a court of competent jurisdiction." These latter uses of "court" can mean, and I suspect the uses were intended to mean, (1) tribal court and (2) state court if a court determines that the IGRA permits jurisdiction shifting over visitors' personal injury suits. The question then reverts, of course, to whether the IGRA permits jurisdiction shifting from tribal court to state district court over Plaintiff's personal injury claims.
The sole provision in the IGRA that is applicable, § 2710(d)(3)(C)(i, ii), is permissive and limited. Read in conjunction with (d)(3)(A) it provides: any compact governing the conduct of gaming activities may include provisions relating to the allocation of civil jurisdiction necessary for the enforcement of civil laws that are directly related to, and necessary for, the licensing and regulation of the conduct of gaming activity. See § 2710(d)(3)(A), (C)(i, ii). These IGRA provisions do not explicitly permit the parties in comp
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|