Drake v. Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community
United States District Court for the District of Arizona
411 F. Supp. 3d 513 (2019)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Nadia Drake (plaintiff) used a service dog to help her cope with severe anxiety and related conditions. Drake went with her service dog to the Talking Stick Casino and Resort (the casino), which was operated by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (the community) (defendant). Casino employees told Drake that she was not allowed to have her dog in the casino, even after Drake tried to provide the employees with her dog’s service credentials. Drake alleged that she suffered a panic attack due to the confrontation with the casino employees. Drake sued the community in federal court in Arizona, asserting a violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title III). Drake also asserted state-law claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The community failed to timely answer the complaint, and Drake obtained a default judgment. The community then moved to set aside the default and also moved to dismiss Drake’s action, asserting tribal sovereign immunity. The district court first found good cause to set aside the default. Then, turning to the community’s motion to dismiss, the court considered whether Title III was applicable to the community and whether the community had sovereign immunity with respect to Drake’s Title III claim and her state-law claims.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Liburdi, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.