Appellant challenges the district court's denial of her motion to dismiss respondent's complaint on the ground that it is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Appellant asserts that the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (the tribe) is an indispensable party to the suit and that, because the tribe cannot be joined, the suit must be dismissed. We conclude that the tribe is neither a necessary nor an indispensable party and therefore affirm the district court's decision.

Slip op. at 2.

The underlying dispute arose when the nonmember tribal casino employee was barred from the casino by the tribal court (and therefore terminated). The state trial court made disturbing statements about the tribal court, but the COA, while troubled, did not find those statements sufficient to reverse:

We agree that the district court's comments are troubling. "'Tribal courts have repeatedly been recognized as appropriate forums for the exclusive adjudication of disputes affecting important personal and property interests of both Indians and non-Indians.'" St. Pierre v. Norton, 498 F. Supp. 2d 214, 221 (D.D.C. 2007) (quoting Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 65-66, 98 S. Ct. 1670, 1680-81 (1978)); see also Lewis v. Norton, 424 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir. 2005) ("The issue is not whether the plaintiffs' claims would be successful in these tribal forums, but only whether tribal forums exist that could potentially resolve the plaintiffs' claims."). The district court's suggestion that the tribal courts could not provide an adequate alternative forum for Shepherd's claims lacks foundation. The fact that Shepherd is the subject of a no-trespass order by the tribe does not necessarily mean that she cannot receive a fair trial of her claims against Stade in tribal court.

Slip op. at 10.

san-pasqual-opening-brief

california-appellee-brief

california-tribal-business-assn-amicus

san-pasqual-reply-brief

And here is news coverage from Indianz:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a gaming compact case involving the Rincon Band of Mission Indians and the Colusa Band of Wintun Indians.

The tribes signed compacts in 1999 that theoretically guaranteed them up to 2,000 slot machines. But limits set by the state prevent some tribes from reaching that limit. The Rincon Band and the Colusa Band each went to court to try to enforce the 2,000 limit but two federal judges dismissed their cases, citing the failure to join other compact tribes as indispensable parties. The other tribes can't be forced to join the case due to their sovereign immunity. According to The San Diego Union-Tribune, judges on the 9th Circuit questioned whether the other tribes were really indispensable parties. They wondered what interest the other tribes have in the Rincon and Colusa suits, which were consolidated on appeal.

Get the Story:
Rincon band heads to court to battle for more slot machines (The San Diego Union-Tribune 4/9)

From SCOTUSBlog:

Docket: 06-1204
Case name: Republic of the Philippines, et al. v. Pimentel, et al.
Issue: Whether, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 19(a) and (b), a court must dismiss an interpleader action involving a foreign country that has successfully claimed sovereign immunity.

• Opinion below (Ninth Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply
• Amicus brief of the United States (in support of the petitioner)

 Here's my own article (a little dated now) on the subject.

Vann 2nd Amended Complaint

Cherokee Motion to Dismiss

Opposition to Cherokee Motion

Cherokee Reply Brief

US Brief

Order Denying Motion

My own article on Rule 19 and tribal interests is here.