3/21/18
Tribal Sovereign Immunity: Cosentino v Fuller u Cosentino v Fuller q The hypothetical is based on a CA state court decision, Cosentino vs. Fuller q The state court did not find the Commissioners’ sovereign immunity claims persuasive q Contrary to the long-settled doctrine of sovereign immunity, the CA state court ruled that sovereign immunity did not apply, and that the Gaming Commissioners exceeded the scope of their powers by revoking the employee’s license without cause u What went wrong?
Tribal Sovereign Immunity: Cosentino v Fuller
u Classic Case of “Bad Facts Making Bad Law”: q The licensee/plaintiff, Cosentino, was a blackjack dealer who, after observing criminal activity on the gaming floor, became a confidential informant for the California Department of Justice q The Gaming Commissioners scheduled a private meeting with Cosentino, but he was never personally notified of the scheduled meeting. After missing the meeting, he was suspended from work q The Gaming Commissioners notified him of his suspension and their intent to revoke license by letter mailed to his former address q About a month later, Cosentino met with the Gaming Commissioners and was asked to disclose information about his informant activities. Cosentino declined to do so. q Shortly after the meeting, Cosentino was notified by letter that his license had been revoked. q Cosentino sued Gaming Commissioners personally, claiming that the revocation was in retaliation for his informant work
5
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker