found that federal courts had jurisdiction to enjoin further per capita distributions of gaming proceeds until the Secretary approved a gaming revenue allocation plan as required under § 2710(b)(3). In this case, the Plaintiffs seek to extend the scope of the waivers found in Maxam and Ross. Unlike the tribes in Maxam and Ross, the Community has a distribution plan which was submitted to the Secretary and has been approved as adequate. (Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 4, 50.) Several of the Plaintiffs in this action appealed the initial approval of the plan to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals, raising essentially the same membership issues as raised in this action and in tribal court. (Id. Ex. J.) That appeal was denied. See Feezor v. Acting Minneapolis Area Director, 25 IBIA 298 (April 28, 1994) (<HOLDING>). The Community’s distribution plan limits per
holding that the debtor lacked standing to bring a claim against the internal revenue service for the improper assessment of a tax deficiency because the cause of action was the property of the estate and had not been abandoned to the debtor holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue a permanent nuisance action for injury to property because none of the plaintiffs were the owners of the land when the cause of action accrued with the first injury holding that plaintiffs lacked standing because the case was not ripe for adjudication holding that plaintiffs lacked standing to sue holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to contest bia action based on their personal assessment of what is or is not in the best interests of the tribe and that the tribal court was the proper forum for resolving plaintiffs membership disputes