## Facts

- Sheila Buzulis, a Massachusetts resident, allegedly was injured at Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut when an unidentified female security guard ran into her and knocked her down while responding to an emergency call.
- About a week later, the plaintiffs (Sheila and her husband Michael) contacted the casino’s director of risk management, seeking information about filing a personal injury claim.
- The plaintiffs alleged the risk-management director did not disclose that tribal law required personal injury claims against the casino to be filed, through qualified counsel, in the Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court within nine months (270 days).
- The Mohegan Tribe is a federally recognized tribe; under its gaming compact and tribal law, the Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court had exclusive jurisdiction over disputes arising from gaming operations, and the tribe did not waive sovereign immunity for tort claims in other forums.
- After the 270-day period, the plaintiffs sued in Massachusetts District Court asserting negligence, deceit, assault and battery, and loss of consortium against the casino, a risk management division, the risk-management director, and the unidentified guard.
- The casino marketed to Massachusetts residents and derived significant revenue from them.

## Issues

1. Whether tribal sovereign immunity and tribal law required tort claims arising from casino operations to be brought exclusively in the Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court, depriving Massachusetts courts of subject matter jurisdiction over the casino.
2. Whether tribal sovereign immunity also protected the casino’s risk management division, the risk-management director, and the unidentified security guard.
3. Whether alleged errors concerning default, pre-dismissal discovery, or reliance on Massachusetts’ long-arm statute could sustain the Massachusetts action despite immunity-based lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Appeals Court affirmed dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction as to Mohegan Sun Casino on tribal sovereign immunity grounds and the exclusive forum provisions of tribal law.
- The court vacated dismissal as to the risk management division, the risk-management director, and the unidentified guard and remanded for factual findings on their relationship to the casino/tribe to determine whether they shared the casino’s immunity.
- The court rejected the plaintiffs’ remaining arguments (default, discovery, and long-arm statute) as insufficient to overcome the jurisdictional bar as to the casino.

## Legal Principles

- Tribal sovereign immunity is governed by federal law; waiver cannot be implied and must be unequivocally expressed.
- A tribal gaming compact and tribal law may channel patron tort claims arising from gaming operations into an exclusive tribal forum without waiving immunity to suit in state courts.
- A state long-arm statute concerns personal jurisdiction and cannot create subject matter jurisdiction where sovereign immunity removes the court’s power to adjudicate claims against a tribal entity.
- Extending tribal immunity beyond the tribal entity requires an adequate record establishing that the additional defendants function as arms, divisions, or agents of the immune entity.

## Conclusion

Massachusetts courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over tort claims against Mohegan Sun Casino because tribal sovereign immunity and tribal law made the Mohegan Gaming Disputes Court the exclusive forum, but the case was remanded to determine whether the casino’s division and employees were sufficiently connected to the tribal entity to receive the same immunity.


Buzulis v. Mohegan Sun Casino, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 708, 871 N.E.2d 527 (2007)