Alturas Indian Rancheria v. Newsom ( 2022 )

1 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 2 SARA J. DRAKE Senior Assistant Attorney General 3 T. MICHELLE LAIRD Supervising Deputy Attorney General 4 TIMOTHY M. MUSCAT, State Bar No. 148944 B. JANE CRUE, State Bar No. 210122 5 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 6 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 7 Telephone: (916) 210-7789 Fax: (916) 323-2319 8 E-mail: Jane.Crue@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for State Defendants 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 14 ALTURAS INDIAN RANCHERIA, a Case No. 2:22-cv-01486-KJM-DMC federally recognized Indian tribe, 15 STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES TO Plaintiff, EXTEND PENDING MOTION 16 OPPOSITION AND REPLY v. DEADLINES; ORDER 17 Dept: Courtroom 3 18 GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State Judge: Honorable Kimberly L. Mueller of California; and the STATE OF Trial Date: None Set 19 CALIFORNIA, Action Filed: 8/22/2022 20 Defendants. 21 22 The parties, through their undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate as follows: 23 1. The defendants State of California (State) and Gavin Newsom in his official capacity 24 as Governor of the State of California (collectively, State Defendants) were served in this case 25 with the summons and Complaint on September 19, 2022. 26 2. The Complaint, filed by plaintiff Alturas Indian Rancheria (Alturas), alleges six 27 claims that the State Defendants failed to negotiate with Alturas in good faith under the Indian 28 1 Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701-2721, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1166-1167, and one 2 claim that State Defendants violated California Government Code section 12012.25. 3 3. This Court signed an order affirming the parties’ stipulation for State Defendants to 4 have until November 14, 2022 to file a responsive pleading to the Complaint. ECF Nos. 17 and 5 18. In turn, State Defendants did, in fact, file a motion to dismiss the Complaint’s sixth and 6 seventh claims for relief on November 14, 2022. ECF No. 20. 7 4. On December 12, 2022, Alturas filed a motion for summary judgment as to the sixth 8 and seventh claims for relief in its Complaint. ECF No. 24. This motion was combined with its 9 opposition to the State Defendants’ motion to dismiss the sixth and seventh claims for relief. Id. 10 5. Pursuant to Local Rule 230, State Defendants’ reply to Alturas’s opposition to their 11 motion to dismiss must be filed on December 22, 2022, and State Defendants’ opposition to 12 Alturas’s motion for summary judgment must be filed on December 27, 2022. 13 6. On December 19, 2022, the parties met and conferred as to a potential extension of 14 time for State Defendants to file an opposition to the motion for summary judgment. It was 15 agreed that if this stipulation is granted, State Defendants will file a combined brief that includes 16 a reply to Alturas’s opposition to State Defendants’ motion to dismiss and an opposition to 17 Alturas’s motion for summary judgment. 18 7. The parties agree that pursuant to Rules 16(b)(4) and 56(d) of the Federal Rules of 19 Civil Procedure, the Court’s discretion under Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 20 and its inherent authority to control its proceedings, there is good cause to extend the pending 21 motion deadlines in this case. 22 8. The Court has power to modify motion deadlines under Rule 16(b)(4) of the Federal 23 Rules of Civil Procedure. This provision provides: “A schedule may be modified only for good 24 cause and with the judge’s consent.” Moreover, Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil 25 Procedure provides in pertinent part, “When an act may or must be done within a specified time, 26 the court may, for good cause, extend the time: (A) with or without motion or notice if the court 27 acts, or if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires[.]” In addition to 28 these statutory sources of authority to modify motion deadlines, the Court has the inherent power 1 to control and manage its docket and the course of proceedings. Southern California Edison Co. 2 v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794, 807 (9th Cir. 2002), citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th 3 Cir. 1992). 4 9. State Defendants are seeking additional time to oppose Alturas’s motion for summary 5 judgment for numerous reasons. 6 10. State Defendants’ lead counsel, Timothy M. Muscat, is retiring from the Office of the 7 Attorney General on December 30, 2022. Mr. Muscat has been lead counsel for State Defendants 8 in this this case and in numerous similar cases filed by Indian tribes alleging bad faith in State 9 Defendants’ negotiation of class III gaming compacts. New counsel will require time to learn the 10 case and get up to speed to prepare adequate pleadings in support of State Defendants. 11 11. State Defendants and their counsel will be taking time off during the holiday season 12 for preplanned vacations and days out of the office, which will make timely filing of the 13 opposition to Alturas’s motion for summary judgment difficult. 14 12. To date, State Defendants have not filed an answer to the Complaint, have not 15 participated in an initial status conference, or prepared an initial status conference statement. 16 13. The parties agree that it will further judicial economy for the Court to set one hearing 17 on both State Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Alturas’s motion for summary judgment. 18 14. For the foregoing reasons, the parties request to move the current hearing date for 19 State Defendants’ motion to dismiss and Alturas’s motion for summary judgment from January 20 27, 2023 to March 31, 2023. 21 15. The parties also request that State Defendants have until five weeks before the March 22 31, 2023, hearing to file a brief that combines its reply to Alturas’s opposition to State 23 Defendants’ motion to dismiss with State Defendants’ opposition to Alturas’s motion for 24 summary judgment. In turn, Alturas would have until three weeks before the March 31, 2023, 25 hearing to file a reply to State Defendants’ opposition to Alturas’s motion for summary judgment. 26 27 28 1 16. Alturas and State Defendants request the Court to enter an order approving, and 2 ordering the parties to carry out the terms of this stipulation. 3 4 Dated: December 21, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 5 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 6 SARA J. DRAKE Senior Assistant Attorney General 7 T. MICHELLE LAIRD Supervising Deputy Attorney General 8 TIMOTHY M. MUSCAT Deputy Attorney General 9 10 /s/ B. Jane Crue 11 B. JANE CRUE 12 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for State Defendants 13 14 Dated: December 21, 2022 PEEBLES KIDDER BERGIN & ROBINSON LLC 15 /s/ John Peebles (as authorized on 12/21/22) 16 17 JOHN M. PEEBLES 18 Attorneys for Alturas Indian Rancheria 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Having read the foregoing stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefore, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above stipulation of the parties is approved. The 4 | hearing on the State of California and Governor Gavin Newsom’s (State Defendants) motion to 5 || dismiss and Alturas Indian Rancheria’s (Alturas) motion for summary judgment set for 6 | January 27, 2023 is reset for March 31, 2023. 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that State Defendants must file a reply to Alturas’s 8 || opposition to State Defendants’ motion to dismiss and an opposition to Alturas’s motion for 9 || summary judgment by February 24, 2023, at least five weeks before the March 31, 2023, hearing. 10 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Alturas must file a reply to State Defendants’ opposition 11 | to Alturas’s motion for summary judgment by March 10, 2023, at least three weeks before the 12 | March 31, 2023 hearing. 13 | DATED: December 28, 2022. 14 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stipulation of the Parties to Extend Pending Motion Opposition