Mohegan sun casino app

Facts

Sheila Buzulis and her husband, Michael Buzulis, sought to recover damages for injuries Sheila sustained when a security guard at the Mohegan Sun Casino in Uncasville, Connecticut, allegedly knocked her down. After the incident, they contacted the casino's Risk Management Director, Mary Lou Hoopman, for information on filing a personal injury claim but claimed Hoopman failed to inform them of the requirement to file a claim through the Gaming Disputes Court within nine months. They initiated a lawsuit in District Court against the casino, Hoopman, Risk Management, and the unidentified security guard (Jane Doe), alleging negligence, deceit, assault and battery, and loss of consortium. The casino moved to dismiss the case based on tribal sovereign immunity, which was granted by the District Court and affirmed by the Appellate Division. The plaintiffs appealed.

The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the Mohegan Sun Casino enjoys sovereign immunity, and the suit against it was properly dismissed as the Gaming Disputes Court had exclusive jurisdiction. However, the court remanded the case to determine the status of the remaining defendants—Hoopman, Risk Management, and Jane Doe—and whether they also enjoy sovereign immunity under their relationship with the casino.

Issue

Whether tribal sovereign immunity precludes the plaintiffs from bringing their claims in a court other than the Gaming Disputes Court, and whether this immunity applies to all defendants, including the casino, Hoopman, Risk Management, and Jane Doe.

Holding

The Massachusetts Appeals Court held that the Mohegan Sun Casino enjoys sovereign immunity, and the suit against it was properly dismissed as the Gaming Disputes Court had exclusive jurisdiction. However, the court remanded the case to determine the status of the remaining defendants—Hoopman, Risk Management, and Jane Doe—and whether they also enjoy sovereign immunity under their relationship with the casino.

Reasoning

The court recognized the Mohegan Tribe's sovereign immunity as a federally recognized Indian tribe, which precludes lawsuits against the tribe unless Congress authorizes the suit or the tribe waives its immunity. The Gaming Disputes Court was established under the tribe's constitution to have exclusive jurisdiction over gaming-related disputes, including personal injury claims arising at the casino. The court found no evidence that the casino waived its sovereign immunity through its commercial activities in Massachusetts. The status of the other defendants as employees of the casino or part of its operational structure was not established in the record; thus, their entitlement to sovereign immunity needed further examination by the District Court. The Appeals Court emphasized that sovereign immunity is a matter of federal law, not subject to state diminution, and waivers of such immunity must be explicitly expressed and cannot be implied.