Case: 18-1449 Document: 23 Filed: 06/27/2018 Pages: 54

Case: 18-1449

Document: 23

Filed: 06/27/2018

Pages: 54

No. 18-1449

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT

STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE

COMMUNITY, a federally recognized

Indian Tribe,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF WISCONSIN;

SCOTT WALKER, in his official capacity

as the Governor of Wisconsin; and

THE HO-CHUNK NATION, a federally

recognized Indian Tribe,

Defendants-Appellees.

APPEAL FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN, NO. 17-CV-249-JDP,

THE HONORABLE JAMES D. PETERSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

RESPONSE BRIEF OF STATE OF WISCONSIN

AND SCOTT WALKER

BRAD D. SCHIMEL

Wisconsin Attorney General

THOMAS C. BELLAVIA

Assistant Attorney General

State Bar #1030182

MAURA FJ WHELAN

Assistant Attorney General

State Bar #1027974

COLIN T. ROTH

Assistant Attorney General

State Bar #1103985

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees

State of Wisconsin and Scott Walker

Case: 18-1449

Document: 23

Wisconsin Department of Justice

Post Office Box 7857

Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7857

(608) 266-8690 (Bellavia)

(608) 266-3859 (Whelan)

(608) 266-6219 (Roth)

(608) 267-2223 (Fax)

bellaviatc@doj.state.wi.us

*Counsel of Record

Filed: 06/27/2018

Pages: 54

Case: 18-1449

Document: 23

Filed: 06/27/2018

Pages: 54

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ......................................................................1

ISSUES PRESENTED .........................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE .............................................................................5

I.

II.

Factual Background..........................................................................5

A.

Stockbridge ..............................................................................5

B.

Ho-Chunk ................................................................................8

C.

Wittenberg ............................................................................ 10

Procedural Background. ................................................................ 11

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .................................................................. 15

STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................. 18

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... 19

I.

Stockbridge¡¯s status as a tribal sovereign does not

make its claims against the State exempt from statutes

of limitation. ................................................................................... 19

A.

Nullum tempus does not apply here because the

statute of limitations borrowed by the district

court applies to actions brought by a government

plaintiff. ................................................................................ 20

B.

Nullum tempus also does not apply because

Stockbridge waived its sovereign immunity in

the Stockbridge Compact. .................................................... 24

C.

Nullum tempus does not apply where, as here, a

governmental plaintiff is acting in a proprietary

rather than a governmental capacity. ................................ 26

-i-

Case: 18-1449

Document: 23

Filed: 06/27/2018

Pages: 54

Page

II.

Stockbridge¡¯s claims for declaratory and injunctive

relief against the State are subject to statutes of

limitation notwithstanding their equitable character. ................ 28

III.

The district court did not apply state law to the

regulation of tribal gaming, but applied federal law,

which incorporates state statutes of limitation. .......................... 34

IV.

The district court correctly borrowed Wisconsin¡¯s

statute of limitations for actions on a contract, rather

than for claims to enjoin a public nuisance, because

Stockbridge¡¯s claims against the State are more closely

analogous to a contract claim. ....................................................... 36

V.

Stockbridge¡¯s claims against the State accrued

in 2008. ........................................................................................... 39

VI.

Stockbridge has abandoned any appeal of the district

court¡¯s denial of Stockbridge¡¯s motion for leave to

amend its complaint. ..................................................................... 41

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 42

ii

Case: 18-1449

Document: 23

Filed: 06/27/2018

Pages: 54

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

118 E. 60th Owners, Inc. v. Bonner Props., Inc.,

677 F.2d 200 (2d Cir. 1982) ........................................................................... 30

Affiliated FM Ins. Co. v. Bd. of Educ. of Chi.,

23 F.3d 1261 (7th Cir. 1994) .......................................................................... 22

Algrant v. Evergreen Valley Nurseries P¡¯ship,

126 F.3d 178 (3d Cir. 1997) ........................................................................... 30

Amin Ijbara Equity Corp. v. Vill. of Oak Lawn,

860 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 18

Bass v. Joliet Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 86,

746 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 33

Baxter v. State,

10 Wis. 454 (1860) .................................................................................... 22, 23

Bd. of Regents v. Tomasio,

446 U.S. 478 (1980) .................................................................................. 34, 35

Bechler v. Kaye,

222 F.2d 216 (10th Cir.1955) ......................................................................... 30

Bernstein v. Bankert,

733 F.3d 190 (7th Cir. 2013) .......................................................................... 19

Buchanan-Moore v. Cty. of Milwaukee,

570 F.3d 824 (7th Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 18

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson,

124 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................ 29

Cada v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.,

920 F.2d 446 (7th Cir. 1990) .......................................................................... 40

Carpenter v. State,

41 Wis. 36 (1876) ............................................................................................ 23

Cathedral of Joy Baptist Church v. Vill. of Hazel Crest,

22 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 1994) ............................................................................ 40

iii

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download