This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, a lessee operating a restaurant within the Santa Ana Star Casino, alleged that the Pueblo of Santa Ana and its entities purposefully prevented the renewal of its liquor license, a requirement under the lease, to take over the successful business. The Pueblo cited violations of its Liquor Code, but the Plaintiff claimed it was unaware of any violations or investigations and alleged the decision was politically motivated (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The trial court dismissed the Plaintiff's claims, finding they were barred by tribal sovereign immunity and fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Tribal Court (para 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the Defendants waived sovereign immunity in the lease agreement and the gaming compact with the State of New Mexico. Additionally, claimed a separate waiver for alleged violations of constitutional rights (paras 7, 29).
- Defendants-Appellees: Contended that no waiver of sovereign immunity existed in the lease, the gaming compact, or otherwise, and that the claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Tribal Court (para 8).
Legal Issues
- Did the lease agreement and resolution waive the Pueblo's sovereign immunity for the Plaintiff's claims?
- Did the gaming compact between the Pueblo and the State of New Mexico waive sovereign immunity for the Plaintiff's claims?
- Was there a waiver of sovereign immunity for claims alleging violations of constitutional rights?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims, holding that the Pueblo's sovereign immunity was not waived under the lease agreement, the gaming compact, or for constitutional claims (para 31).
Reasons
Per Pickard J. (Bustamante C.J. and Alarid J. concurring):
Lease Agreement and Resolution: The lease explicitly stated that there was no waiver of sovereign immunity for the Pueblo itself, and the limited waiver for Tamaya Enterprises, Inc. (TEI) only applied to actions in the Pueblo of Santa Ana Tribal Court seeking injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, or specific performance. The Plaintiff's claims, which sought damages in state court, fell outside the scope of this waiver (paras 3, 12-14).
Gaming Compact: The 2001 gaming compact, which superseded the 1997 version, provided a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for claims involving bodily injury or property damage suffered by visitors to the gaming facility. The Court found that the Plaintiff, as a commercial lessee, was not a "visitor" under the compact, and its claims for contract and tort damages did not fall within the scope of "bodily injury or property damage" as intended by the compact's drafters (paras 15-25).
Constitutional Claims: The Plaintiff argued that the gaming compact's non-discrimination provisions implied a waiver of sovereign immunity for claims of racial and national origin discrimination. The Court rejected this argument, noting that waivers of sovereign immunity must be express and unequivocal, and no such waiver was present in the compact's language (paras 29-30).
The Court concluded that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to the Pueblo's sovereign immunity, affirming the dismissal of the Plaintiff's claims (para 31).