State of Kansas vs. National Indian Gaming Commission et al.,

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 23 Motion for Extension of Time to File.; granting 40 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; granting 49 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Signed by District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree on 06/26/15. (cmh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
STATE OF KANSAS,
ex rel. Derek Schmidt, Attorney General,
State of Kansas and BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
CHEROKEE, KANSAS,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 15-CV-4857-DDC
v.
NATIONAL INDIAN
GAMING COMMISSION, et al.
PROJECTS CORP.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on three Motions for Extension of the Deadline for
Responding to Request for Preliminary Injunction filed by: (1) Barbara Kyser Collier, Art
Cousatte, Thomas Crawfish Matthews, Larry Ramsey, Tamara Smiley Reeves, Rodney Spriggs,
and Fran Wood (Doc. 23); (2) the Quapaw Tribal Development Corporation (Doc. 40); and (3)
the Downstream Development Authority of the Quapaw Tribe of Oklahoma and John L. Berrey
(Doc. 49) (collectively, the “Tribal Defendants”).
The Tribal Defendants have requested an extension until June 22, 2015 to respond to
plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 14). They argue that as subdivisions, arms,
officers, and directors of the Quapaw Tribal government, they are immune from suit in federal
court. They contend that tribal immunity requires the Court to dismiss this action before it
addresses any other issue. The Tribal Defendants have filed a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 50) and a
Motion to Stay Proceedings on Pending Request for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 52) asserting

1

their tribal immunity defenses. Plaintiffs’ time to respond to these motions under D. Kan. Rule
6.1(d) has not expired.
Generally, a court must decide whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction over a party
claiming tribal immunity before a case may continue. See Kiowa Indian Tribe of Okla. v.
Hoover, 150 F.3d 1163, 1172 (10th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he Tribe should not be compelled ‘to expend
time and effort on litigation in a court that does not have jurisdiction over them.’”) (quoting
Seneca-Cayuga Tribe v. Oklahoma, 874 F.2d 709, 716 (10th Cir. 1989)). The Court therefore
grants the Tribal Defendants an extension to respond to plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary
Injunction. But it does not set a date by which the Tribal Defendants must respond at this time.
Instead, the Court will first consider the parties’ jurisdictional arguments raised in the Tribal
Defendants’ Motion to Stay. If it determines that it has subject-matter jurisdiction over the
Tribal Defendants, the Court will set a response date. Thus, the Court grants in part the Tribal
Defendants’ Motions for Extension.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the Tribal Defendants’
Motions for Extension of Deadline for Responding to Request for Preliminary Injunction (Docs.
23, 40, 49) are granted in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 26th day of June, 2015, at Topeka, Kansas.

s/ Daniel D. Crabtree_____
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge

2