Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 65, 98 S.Ct. at 1680. Thus, this claim fails, as have Counts II through IV. Because plaintiffs cannot state causes of action in Counts II through V even if sovereign immunity is waived, Count I, alleging violation of the corporate charter, müst be dismissed. Violations of the Indian Gaming Act (Counts II & III) Having dismissed Count I, the Court must next consider whether federal jurisdiction exists to entertain Counts II and III if the Tribe has not waived its sovereign immunity in the corporate charter. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider whether defendants have complied with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721. See Maxam v. Lower Sioux Indian Community of Minnesota, 829 F.Supp. 277, 281 (D.Minn.1993) (<HOLDING>). As a result of the district court’s decision
holding that offreservation casino owned and operated by tribe was arm of the tribe and therefore was entitled to sovereign immunity holding that tribes wholly owned commercial business enjoyed sovereign immunity recognizing sovereign immunity of forprofit corporation formed by a tribe to operate the tribes casino holding that by engaging in gaming tribe waives sovereign immunity for narrow purpose of determining tribes compliance with the igra holding that state did not have jurisdiction over tribe where tribe paid into workers compensation program but had not waived sovereign immunity