Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria v. State of California ( 2023 )

1 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 2 SARA J. DRAKE Senior Assistant Attorney General 3 T. MICHELLE LAIRD Supervising Deputy Attorney General 4 JEREMY STEVENS, State Bar No. 313883 TIMOTHY M. MUSCAT, State Bar No. 148944 5 Deputy Attorney General 1300 I Street, Suite 125 6 P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 7 Telephone: (916) 210-7779 Fax: (916) 323-2319 8 E-mail: Timothy.Muscat@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants 9 GEORGE FORMAN, State Bar No. 47822 10 FORMAN SHAPIRO & ROSENFELD LLP 5055 Lucas Valley Road 11 Nicasio, CA 94946 Telephone: (415) 491-2310 12 Email: george@gformanlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff 13 14 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 1:20-cv-01539-AWI-SKO 18 BEAR RIVER BAND OF THE ROHNERVILLE RANCHERIA, a federally AMENDED STIPULATION FOR 19 recognized Indian Tribe, GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR AND ORDER 20 Plaintiff, REQUIRING PARTIES TO PROCEED TO THE REMEDIAL PROCESS IN 25 21 v. U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii) 22 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and GAVIN 23 NEWSOM IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 1 On July 28, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued its published decision in Chicken Ranch 2 Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California (Chicken Ranch), 42 F.4th 1024 (9th Cir 2022). That 3 case involved whether the State of California (State) had failed to negotiate in good faith with 4 five California tribes seeking new tribal-state compacts required by the Indian Gaming 5 Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710-2712, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1166-1167, in order for the tribes 6 to conduct what IGRA defines as “class III gaming.” The court held that “IGRA strictly limits 7 the topics that states may include in tribal-state Class III compacts to those directly related to the 8 operation of gaming activities.” Chicken Ranch, 42 F.4th at 1029. 9 The Chicken Ranch court ruled that the State failed to engage in good-faith negotiations 10 with five plaintiff tribes under IGRA by insisting on provisions not directly related to the 11 operation of class III gaming activities. The specific provisions addressed by the Ninth Circuit 12 concerned tribal recognition of spousal and child support orders for all gaming facility 13 employees, environmental review and mitigation for a broadly defined set of projects, and broad 14 tort claims coverage. Chicken Ranch, 42 F.4th at 1037-39. The court held that under 25 U.S.C. 15 § 2710(d)(3)(C)(vii), “these family, environmental, and tort law provisions are not ‘directly 16 related to the operation of gaming activities.’” Id. at 1038. 17 Similar to the plaintiff tribes in Chicken Ranch, plaintiff Bear River Band of the 18 Rohnerville Rancheria, a federally recognized Indian tribe (Bear River), is a former member of 19 the Compact Tribes Steering Committee (CTSC). On August 19, 2014, the CTSC, a coalition of 20 twenty-eight federally recognized California Indian tribes, wrote to inform the State of CTSC’s 21 formation and its desire to begin the negotiation process for new class III gaming compacts. Bear 22 River was a member of CTSC in 2014, and remained a member until July 6, 2020. As such, Bear 23 River shares the same record of negotiations (RON) with the plaintiff tribes in Chicken Ranch 24 from August 19, 2014, through July 6, 2020. 25 Bear River withdrew from negotiations with the State and filed its Complaint for 26 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) on August 12, 2020. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint’s 27 claim for relief alleged that the State failed in its duty to negotiate in good faith under IGRA. (Id. 28 at 8-19.) Regarding this claim in Bear River’s Complaint, on May 26, 2021, Bear River and the 1 State and Governor Gavin Newsom (State Defendants) filed cross-motions for summary 2 judgment. (Docs. 48 & 49.) In these motions, the parties disputed whether the State failed in its 3 duty under IGRA to negotiate in good faith. These motions included disputes over whether the 4 State’s proposed provisions regarding tort liability and remedies (Complaint, Count Nine), tribal 5 recognition of employee spousal and child support orders (Complaint, Count Eleven), and 6 environmental review and mitigation (Complaint, Count Thirteen), exceeded the permissible 7 scope of negotiations under IGRA, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C)(i)-(vii), and thus constituted a 8 failure by the State to negotiate in good faith. In addition, these motions included disputes over 9 other provisions proposed by the State. Some of those provisions were at issue in Chicken Ranch 10 but were not ruled upon by the Ninth Circuit in Chicken Ranch, while other provisions were not 11 specifically at issue in Chicken Ranch. 12 In support of their cross-motions for summary judgment, on May 26, 2021, the parties 13 each filed an identical Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (JSUF). (Docs. 48-5 & 49-4.) The 14 stipulated facts in the JSUF included facts from the RON based upon CTSC compact negotiations 15 over tort claims coverage (JSUF, Nos. 44, 46, 50, 58, 146-48, 168, 175 & 199), employee spousal 16 and child support orders (JSUF, Nos. 49-52, 101, 158-59, 170 & 174), environmental review and 17 mitigation (JSUF, Nos. 16, 21, 23, 42, 44-45, 47, 49, 51, 98, 108, 129, 130-31, 133 & 164), and 18 the other provisions at issue in the cross-motions for summary judgment (e.g., JSUF, Nos. 16, , 19 21, 23-24, 26, 34, 36, 39, 42, 45-47, 49-52, 58, 74, 76, 78 & 101). 20 While Bear River and the State Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment remain 21 pending before the Court, the Ninth Circuit’s Chicken Ranch decision resolved the central legal 22 issues under IGRA in these motions – i.e., generally the extent to which 25 U.S.C. 23 § 2710(d)(3)(C)(i)-(vii) limits the permissible scope of compact negotiations and whether the 24 State’s insistence on compact provisions concerning tort claims coverage, employee spousal and 25 child support orders, and environmental review and mitigation constituted a failure to negotiate in 26 good faith. 27 Based on Chicken Ranch’s key holdings, the largely identical RONs in both this case and 28 Chicken Ranch, and the parties’ JSUFs, the parties now request the Court, pursuant to this 1 stipulation, grant summary judgment in Bear River’s favor on its claim for relief that the State 2 failed to negotiate in good faith as required by IGRA because it sought “to negotiate for compact 3 provisions that fall well outside of IGRA’s permissible topics of negotiation,” Chicken Ranch, 42 4 F.4th at 1040, namely, tribal recognition of state court spousal and child support orders, 5 environmental review and mitigation for a broadly defined set of “projects,” and broad tort claims 6 coverage based upon California law, and order the parties to proceed pursuant to the remedial 7 process set forth in IGRA, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii). 8 9 Dated: December 12, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 10 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California 11 SARA J. DRAKE Senior Assistant Attorney General 12 T. MICHELLE LAIRD Supervising Deputy Attorney General 13 JEREMY STEVENS Deputy Attorney General 14 /s/ Timothy M. Muscat (as authorized on 15 12/5/2022) 16 TIMOTHY M. MUSCAT Deputy Attorney General 17 Attorneys for Defendants 18 Respectfully submitted, Dated: December 12, 2022 19 FORMAN SHAPIRO & ROSENFELD LLP 20 /s/ George Forman 21 George Forman 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 Based upon the above stipulation by the parties, summary judgment is granted in Bear 3 | River’s favor on the claim for relief in its Complaint, consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s decision 4 | in Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians vy. California (Chicken Ranch), 42 F.4th 1024 5 | (9th Cir. 2022), and the undisputed facts agreed upon by the parties. 6 Accordingly, the parties ARE HEREBY ORDERED to proceed pursuant to the remedial 7 | process set forth in IGRA, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)Gii)-(vil). 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 | Dated: _ January 26, 2023 —<= Z : Cb it — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Stip. Granting Summ. J. in Pl.’s Favor and Order Requiring Parties to Proceed to Remedial Process