Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. State of California ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CHICKEN RANCH RANCHERIA OF CASE NO. 1:19-CV-0024 AWI SKO ME-WUK INDIANS, BLUE LAKE 9 RANCHERIA, CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN STIPULATIONS AND ORDER TRIBE, HOPLAND BAND OF POMO 10 INDIANS, and ROBINSON RANCHERIA 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of 14 California, and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 28, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued its published decision in Chicken Ranch 18 Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California, 42 F.4th 1024 (9th Cir 2022). This case concerns 19 whether the State of California (State) had failed to negotiate in good faith with five California 20 tribes seeking new tribal-state compacts required by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 21 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710-2712, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1166-1167, in order for the tribes to conduct what IGRA 22 defines as “class III gaming.” The court held that “IGRA strictly limits the topics that states may 23 include in tribal-state Class III compacts to those directly related to the operation of gaming 24 activities.” Chicken Ranch, 42 F.4th at 1029. 25 The Ninth Circuit ruled that the State failed to engage in good-faith negotiations with five 26 plaintiff tribes under IGRA by insisting on provisions not directly related to the operation of class 27 III gaming activities. The specific provisions addressed by the Ninth Circuit concerned tribal 28 recognition of spousal and child support orders for all gaming facility employees, environmental 1 review and mitigation for a broadly defined set of projects, and broad tort claims coverage. 2 Chicken Ranch, 42 F.4th at 1037-39. The court held that under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(C)(vii), 3 “these family, environmental, and tort law provisions are not ‘directly related to the operation of 4 gaming activities.’” Id. at 1038. 5 Consequently, the parties stipulated in Document 130 as follows: 6 1. On June 8, 2022, the Court issued an order selecting retired Federal District Court Judge Raul 7 A. Ramirez (“Judge Ramirez”) as mediator, pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 8 (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iv). Doc. 113 (“Appointment Order”). 9 2. On June 14, 2022, the parties filed a joint status report informing the Court that Judge Ramirez 10 would not be available for the appointment as mediator. Doc. 114. 11 3. On June 15, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Appointment of Replacement Mediator. Doc. 12 115. 13 4. On June 15, 2022, the defendants filed a Motion for Stay of the Appointment Order. Doc. 116. 14 5. On July 28, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in Chicken Ranch 15 Rancheria of Me-wuk Indians, et al., v. State of California, et al., 42 F.4th 1024 (9th Cir. 2022) 16 (“Appellate Decision”), in which the Court directed the parties to proceed with the IGRA 17 mediation process. Doc. 66-1. 18 6. On September 15, 2022, counsel for the defendants sent a joint email on behalf of all the parties 19 to Colleen Conefrey, the case manager for Judge Ramirez, inquiring again whether Judge Ramirez 20 would be interested in and available for appointment as the mediator in this case. Plaintiffs’ 21 counsels were copied on the email. On the same day, Ms. Conefrey replied by email that Judge 22 Ramirez was agreeable to accept his appointment as mediator in this case. Her email message 23 requested additional information from the parties and stated that once the information is received, 24 Judge Ramirez’s office “will proceed in initiating this matter.” 25 7. On September 16, 2022, counsel for the defendants responded with another joint email on 26 behalf of all the parties to Ms. Conefrey’s September 15, 2022, email, which provided the 27 information she had requested. A copy of Timothy Muscat’s email to Ms. Conefrey is 28 incorporated by this reference and attached hereto as Exhibit A. 1 8. On September 20, 2022, the Court of Appeals issued the formal mandate in the Appellate 2 Decision pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. 73. 3 9. In light of the foregoing, the parties jointly stipulate and request that the Court issue an order 4 (“Order”), pursuant to this report and stipulation: (a) granting the withdrawal of the plaintiffs’ 5 motion to appoint a replacement mediator (Doc. 115); (b) granting the withdrawal of the 6 defendants’ motion for stay (Doc. 116); (c) confirming the appointment of retired federal judge 7 Raul Ramirez as the mediator in this case; (d) ordering the parties within five (5) days of the 8 issuance of the Court’s Order to submit to Judge Ramirez a copy of this stipulation and the Order, 9 and (e) the parties will work cooperatively with Judge Ramirez to attempt to adopt a schedule that 10 will allow the parties to submit their last, best offer compacts and briefs in support thereof to 11 Judge Ramirez within 65 days from the date that the Court issues an order pursuant to this 12 stipulation. 13 14 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, the plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw the Motion for 15 Appointment of Replacement Mediator (Doc. 115) is hereby GRANTED. 16 IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that, the defendants’ motion to withdraw the 17 Motion for Stay of Court’s June 8, 2022, Order (Doc. 116) is hereby GRANTED. 18 IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that; the parties shall work with Judge Ramirez 19 and his staff on a schedule to submit to Judge Ramirez “a proposed compact that represents their 20 last best offer for a compact.” 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iv). The mediator “shall select from the 21 two proposed compacts the one which best comports with the terms of [IGRA], id., the Ninth 22 Circuit’s decision in Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, et al., 42 F.4th 1024 (9th Cir. 23 2022), and any other applicable federal law. Once Judge Ramirez selects a compact as directed, he 24 “shall submit [the selected compact] to the State and the respective Plaintiff Tribes. 25 U.S.C. § 25 2710(d)(7)(B)(v). “If [the] State consents to a proposed compact during the 60-day period 26 beginning on the date on which the proposed compact is submitted by the mediator to the State 27 under clause (v), the proposed compact shall be treated as a Tribal-State compact entered into 28 under [§ 2710(d)](3).” Id. at § 2710(d)(7)(B)(vi). “If the State does not consent during the 60-day 1 | period described [above] to [the] proposed compact submitted by [the mediator to the State], [the 2 mediator] shall notify the Secretary” of the Interior. Id. at § 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii). The Secretary of 3 | the Interior, in consultation with the respective Plaintiff Tribe, shall then prescribe procedures for 4 | operation of class III gaming by the respective Tribe that are consistent with the compact selected 5 | by the mediator, the provisions of IGRA, and the relevant provisions of the laws of the 6 | State. Id. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the parties shall carry out all of the other provisions 8 | of the above stipulation. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: _ January 26, 2023 ZS Cb □□ SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28