2Īlthough the chairman of the Seminole Tribal Council, Mitchell Cypress, submitted the lease to the Secretary of the Interior for approval, it was never approved. § 162.604(a) (“All leases made pursuant to the regulations in this part shall be in the form approved by the Secretary and subject to his written approval.”). § 81(b) (“No agreement or contract with an Indian tribe that encumbers Indian lands for a period of 7 or more years shall be valid unless that agreement or contract bears the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or a designee of the Secretary.”) 25 C.F.R. Both the regulations and the statute explicitly condition the validity of the lease on the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. § 81, apply to the putative lease, even if they had not been expressly incorporated into the lease's terms. It is undisputed that these regulations, as well as 25 U.S.C. 1 Most pertinently, however, the entire lease's validity was explicitly conditioned upon approval by the Secretary of the Interior: “The is all conditioned upon approval of this Lease by the Secretary of the Interior, or her authorized representative (‘the Secretary’).” The lease also incorporated by reference the regulations prescribed by the Secretary pursuant to 25 C.F.R. In the lease the Tribe expressly waived its sovereign immunity concerning any lawsuits Contour might bring based on the Tribe's default or breach of the lease agreement.

Contour operated a spa facility located in the Hard Rock from May 2004 through March 2010 pursuant to a long-term lease that provided for an initial period of ten years followed by four renewal terms of five years each. The Seminole Tribe of Florida is a federally recognized Indian tribe that owns and operates the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Hollywood, Florida. Finally, the equitable estoppel claim is unavailable because it is grounded on a waiver provision contained within a lease agreement that is wholly invalid as a matter of federal law.īecause we are reviewing the district court's order granting the tribal defendants' motions to dismiss, we take as true the facts as alleged in Contour's complaint and attached exhibits. As for Contour's Indian Civil Rights Act claim, it must fail because the Supreme Court has already held that Indian tribes are immune from suit under the statute. Because the problems of inconsistency and unfairness that were inherent in the procedural posture of Lapides are absent here, and because an Indian tribe's sovereign immunity is of a far different character than a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity, we decline to extend Lapides. The district court rejected all three arguments, and we now affirm. 1640, 152 L.Ed.2d 806 (2002) Contour also says that Congress has authorized its suit by creating an implied cause of action under the Indian Civil Rights Act and finally, Contour argues that principles of equitable estoppel prevent the Tribe from asserting immunity. Contour offers three reasons to avoid immunity: first, and most basic, Contour claims that the Tribe's removal of this case to federal court constitutes a voluntary waiver of the Tribe's immunity, relying on the Supreme Court's Eleventh Amendment case of Lapides v. Contour appeals from a district court order dismissing its Amended Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on account of the Tribe's sovereign immunity. This case arises out of a leasing agreement between Contour Spa (“Contour”) and the Seminole Tribe of Florida (“the Tribe”) that turned sour.

Donald Albert Orlovsky, Kamen & Orlovsky, PA, West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant–Appellee. Rogow, PA, Fort Lauderdale, FL, for Plaintiff–Appellant. Decided: August 30, 2012īefore MARCUS and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and EVANS,* District Judge.īruce Stephen Rogow, Bruce S. SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA, a federally recognized Indian tribe, Mitchell Cypress, et al., Defendants–Appellees. United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit.ĬONTOUR SPA AT THE HARD ROCK, INC., a Florida corporation, Plaintiff–Appellant, v.

Contour day spa hollywood fl