Club One Casino, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior
| Decision Date | 13 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:16-cv-01908-AWI-EPG |
| Citation | 328 F.Supp.3d 1033 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | CLUB ONE CASINO, INC., dba Club One Casino ; Glcr, Inc., dba The Deuce Lounge and Casino, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; Ryan Zinke, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior; and Mike Black in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Secretary of the Interior—Indian Affairs, Defendants. |
Robert D. Links, Marglyn Evelyn Paseka, Slote Links & Boreman, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Donald R. Fischbach, Dowling Aaron Incorporated, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiffs.
JoAnn L. Kintz, Steven Edward Miskinis, United States Department of Justice, Enrd/IRS, Washington, DC, Joseph Nathanael Watson, United States Department of Justice, Enrd/IRS, Denver, CO, for Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ORDER CLOSING THE CASE
Plaintiffs Club One Casino and The Deuce Lounge (collectively "Plaintiffs" or "Club One") bring the instant Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") challenge to the issuance of Secretarial Procedures by the United States Department of the Interior, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (collectively "DOI" or "Federal Defendants") permitting the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians ("North Fork") to conduct tribal gaming on a 305.49 acre parcel of land in Madera County, California (the "Madera Site"). Complaint, Doc. 1 ("Compl.") at ¶ 1. The substance of the APA challenge is directed at whether the Federal Defendants adequately considered whether North Fork had jurisdiction over the Madera Site for purposes of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ("IGRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 2701, et seq.
The parties have filed cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs' argument is twofold. First they contend that "the Secretarial Procedures [offend the APA] because defendants ... never considered ... whether the North Fork Tribe actually possesses territorial jurisdiction over the proposed casino site." Doc. 36-1 at 12. The Federal Defendants respond that North Fork necessarily has jurisdiction over the proposed gaming site as a result of the fee-to-trust determination conducted pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act ("IRA"), taking that land into trust for the Tribe. Second, Plaintiffs argue, assuming that the fee-to-trust determination does shift some jurisdiction from the state to the Tribe, the IRA violates of the Tenth Amendment.
For the following reasons, Plaintiffs' motion will be denied and the Federal Defendants' motion will be granted.
Although the background surrounding the proposed gaming facility at the Madera Site is extensive, the Court limits this section to the information relevant to, or addressed in, Plaintiffs' challenge to the Secretary's issuance of Secretarial Procedures.
Club One Casino and The Deuce Lounge are both cardrooms licensed by the State of California. Declaration of Kyle Kirkland, Doc. 36-3 ("Kirkland Decl.") at ¶¶ 2, 6. Club One operates in Fresno, California and is licensed by the City of Fresno. Id at ¶ 2. The Deuce Lounge is located in Goshen, California and licensed by the County of Tulare. Id . at ¶ 6. Both Club One and The Deuce Lounge are limited in the kinds of games that they may offer. For instance, both operate poker, baccarat, and blackjack games but neither is permitted to operate slot machines or banking card games where the player bets against the house. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 6.
The Madera Site is roughly 25 miles from Club One and 65 miles from The Deuce Lounge. Kirkland Decl. at ¶¶ 3, 7. The Secretarial Procedures permit North Fork to operate slot machines and banking card games that Plaintiffs cannot operate. See Administrative Record ("AR") at AR00002202 (North Fork is permitted under the Secretarial Procedures to operate "Gaming Devices," i.e., slot machines, and "banking or percentage card games," among other things.) Both Club One and The Deuce Lounge contend that their businesses will suffer if North Fork is permitted to conduct Class III gaming at the Madera Site. Kirkland Decl. at ¶¶ 5, 9.
The North Fork is a federally recognized Indian tribe. AR00000241; see generally Stand Up for California! v. United States Department of the Interior , 204 F.Supp.3d 212, 228-231 (D.D.C. Sept. 6, 2016)aff'd 879 F.3d 1177 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 12, 2018)rehrg. en bank denied (Apr. 10, 2018).1 "In 1916, pursuant to appropriations acts authorizing the Secretary to purchase land in California for Indians, see Act of May 18, 1916, ch. 125, § 3, 39 Stat. 62, ... the DOI purchased what became the North Fork Rancheria, comprised of 80 acres of land near the town of North Fork, for the use and benefit of approximately 200 landless Indians belonging to the North Fork band." Stand Up for California! , 204 F.Supp.3d at 229. That 80-acre plot of land is approximately 4 miles east of the town of North Fork in Madera County. AR 00000245. "The land, which was ‘poorly located [,] ... absolutely worthless as a place to build homes on’ and ‘lack[ed] ... water for [both] domestic purposes and ... irrigation,’ was essentially uninhabitable." Stand Up for California! , 204 F.Supp.3d at 229 (). Additionally, that reservation was " ‘on environmentally sensitive lands within the Sierra National Forest, ... near Yosemite National Park....’ " Id. at 231 ().
The United States also holds in trust for the Tribe a 61.5-acre tract of land " ‘located on a steep hillside ... in ... North Fork.’ " Stand Up for California! , 204 F.Supp.3d at 231. (citation omitted). "The tract contains a community center, basic infrastructure (i.e., roads, water, sewer), pads for nine single-family homes, and the North Fork Tribe's ‘current government headquarters.’ " Id. (citation omitted).
The Madera Site is a 305.49-acre plot of land in Madera County, California, approximately 15 miles north of the city limits of the City of Fresno on Avenue 17, just west of the intersection with State Route 99. AR00002299-00002300; Doc. 37-2 at 3. The Madera Site is about 38 miles from North Fork's Rancheria lands and about 36 miles from its 61.5 acre tract which is used for housing. AR00000245; Stand Up for California , 204 F.Supp.3d at 231 ; Doc. 37-2 at 3.
In March of 2005, North Fork submitted an application to the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") to have the Madera Site taken into trust for the purpose of operating a Class III gaming facility ("fee-to-trust application"). Doc. 37-2 at 5; AR00000240. In the same month, North Fork also requested that the Secretary make the two-part after-acquired lands determination2 pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2719(b)(1)(A) ( "2719 application"). Doc. 37-2 at 5; AR00000240; AR 00000160. On September 1, 2011, the Secretary issued a Record of Decision on the 2719 application ("the 2719 ROD"), finding that gaming on the Madera Site would be in the best interest of North Fork and not detrimental to the surrounding community. Doc. 37-2 at 6; AR00000240. The Governor of the State of California ("the Governor") concurred with that determination on August 31, 2012. Doc. 32-7 at 7; AR 00000317-00000318.
On November 26, 2012, the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs issued a Record of Decision approving the fee-to-trust application ("the IRA ROD"). Doc. 37-2 at 7; AR00000159-00000227. The Madera Site was acquired in trust by the United States for the benefit of North Fork in 2013. North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California v. State of California , 2015 WL 11438206, *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2015) (" North Fork v. California "); Doc. 37-2 at 3. Prior to the acquisition of the Madera Site in trust for North Fork, the land was privately owned. Doc. 37-2 at 4; Doc. 30 at 3. Jurisdiction over the land was not reserved by the United States when California was admitted to the Union in 1850. Doc. 37-2 at 4. The State of California has never taken express steps to cede territorial jurisdiction over the land to the United States or North Fork and the United States has never issued a written acceptance of cession of jurisdiction in connection with the Madera Site. Doc. 37-2 at 4.
On August 31, 2012, the Governor concluded a compact with North Fork to conduct Class III gaming at the Madera Site. Doc. 37-2 at 7; AR00000320-00000438. That compact was concluded on the same date as the Governor's concurrence with the Secretary's two-part determination and before the IRA ROD issued or the land was taken into trust for North Fork. The Governor's office then forwarded the compact to the California Legislature for ratification. Doc. 37-2 at 7; North Fork v. California , 2015 WL 11438206 at *2. On June 27, 2013, the California Legislature ratified the compact by means of Assembly Bill 277 ("AB 277"), and the Governor signed the bill on July 3, 2013. Doc. 37-2 at 8. The California Secretary of State forwarded the compact to the Secretary of the Interior on July 16, 2013, with the notation that the effective date of the compact would be January 1, 2014, unless a referendum measure qualified for the ballot. AR00000439-00000440.3 The Secretary of State made clear that if the referendum measure qualified for the ballot, AR 277 would not take effect until the voters had voted on it.
Notice of the completed compact was published in the Federal Register on October 22, 2013, stating that the compact was "approved" and was taking effect to "the extent it was consistent with IGRA." 78 Fed.Reg. 62649-01 (Oct. 22, 2013). On November 20, 2013,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stand Up for California v. U.S. Dep't of Interior
...when these procedures were challenged on the comparable ground that they were inconsistent with relevant state law. See Club One, 328 F. Supp. 3d at 1049–50 (rejecting that challenge). In noteworthy contrast, Stand Up has not claimed that the procedures themselves are inconsistent with fede......
-
Stand Up for California! v. United States Dep't of Interior
...as a replacement for a Tribal-State compact provides the teeth for the entire remedial scheme that Congress created. Club One Casino, 328 F.Supp.3d at 1050. Absent a threat, “the purpose of the remedial process-restoring leverage to tribes to sue recalcitrant states and thereby force them i......
-
Gianni Versace, S.P.A. v. Versace 19.69 Abbigliamento Sportivo SRL
...Corp. , 2014 WL 4679001, at *13 ("There is no hardship to a defendant when a permanent injunction would merely require the defendant to 328 F.Supp.3d 1033comply with law."). In view of the substantial and uncontroverted evidence of harm to Versace, the equities clearly weigh in Versace's fa......
-
S. Point Energy Ctr. LLC v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue
...Congress enacted § 5108 in 1934 to codify Rickert ’s holding. See 25 U.S.C. § 5108 ; Club One Casino, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Interior , 328 F. Supp. 3d 1033, 1045 (E.D. Cal. 2018) ("Under Ninth Circuit authority, this Court should treat land placed in trust for a tribe pursuant ......