Stand Up for Cal. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Case no. 2:16-CV-02681-AWI-EPG

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
Writing for the CourtANTHONY W. ISHII, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
Citation328 F.Supp.3d 1051
Parties STAND UP FOR CALIFORNIA!, et al. Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al. Defendants.
Docket NumberCase no. 2:16-CV-02681-AWI-EPG
Decision Date18 July 2018

328 F.Supp.3d 1051

STAND UP FOR CALIFORNIA!, et al. Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, et al.
Defendants.

Case no. 2:16-CV-02681-AWI-EPG

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed July 18, 2018


328 F.Supp.3d 1055

Brian Anthony Daluiso, Perkins Coie, LLP, San Diego, CA, Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier, Pro Hac Vice, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Phoenix, AZ, Jennifer A. MacLean, Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, DC, Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, for Plaintiffs.

JoAnn L. Kintz, Steven Edward Miskinis, US Department of Justice Indian Resources Section/ENRD, Washington, DC, Joseph Nathanael Watson, United States Department Of Justice, Enrd/IRS, Denver, CO, for Defendants.

ORDER DENYING STAND UP FOR CALIFORNIA!'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 29)

ORDER GRANTING NORTH FORK'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 36)

ORDER GRANTING THE UNITED STATES' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Doc. 40)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY

(Doc. 28)

ANTHONY W. ISHII, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

I. Introduction

Plaintiffs Stand Up for California!, Randall Brannon, Madera Ministerial Association, Susan Stjerne, First Assembly of God - Madera, and Dennis Sylvester (collectively "Stand Up") have brought this action against the Department of the Interior, and its Bureau of Indian Affairs and the heads of both (collectively the "Federal Defendants" or "United States"), seeking to prevent class III gaming activity by the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians at a 305.49 acre parcel of land in Madera, California ("the Madera Parcel"). See Doc. 13. The Court permitted North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians ("North Fork") to intervene in this action. Doc. 23.

The parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment in accordance with the briefing schedule approved by the Court. Docs. 23, 29, 36, 40. Plaintiff Stand Up has also filed a motion to stay the proceedings until the California Supreme Court can resolve whether the Governor of the State of California had the authority under California law to concur in the Secretary of the

328 F.Supp.3d 1056

Interior's two-part after acquired lands determination. Doc. 28; see 25 U.S.C. § 2917(b)(1)(A). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions will be denied and Defendants' motions will be granted.

II. Background

A. North Fork Tribe and Acquisition of Proposed Gaming Site

The North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians is a federally recognized Indian tribe, located in Madera County. North Fork's Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts, Doc. 38 ("Doc. 38") at ¶ 1. Presently, "North Fork has no source of revenue other than federal grants and California Revenue Sharing Trust Fund distributions...." Doc. 38 at ¶ 2. North Fork possesses a 61.5 acre parcel in North Fork, California, held in trust by the United States as a reservation. See Doc. 38 at ¶ 2; Administrative Record ("AR") at 00000248.1 That land is "not suitable for commercial development." Doc. 38 at ¶ 2.

In 2005, North Fork submitted a fee-to-trust application to the United States Department of the Interior, seeking to have a roughly 305-acre parcel of land in Madera, California, (the "Madera Site") taken into trust for purposes of developing a hotel and casino. Doc. 38 at ¶ 3; AR00000160. In 2006, North Fork submitted a supplement to its fee-to-trust application, also asking the Secretary of the Interior conduct a two-part determination2 pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2917(b)(1)(A), excepting the Madera Parcel from the prohibition on gaming on lands acquired in trust for an Indian tribe after October 17, 1988. See Doc. 38 at ¶ 4; AR00000240.

A lengthy review process followed. Significant for this action, the Department of the Interior conducted an environmental impact study ("EIS") to address the environmental impact of operation of a hotel and casino on the Madera Site. See Doc. 38 at ¶ 6; North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians v. State of California ("North Fork v. California "), 2015 WL 11438206, *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2015). The results of the EIS were published on August 6, 2010. AR00000160; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. United States Dept. of the Interior ("Picayune v. DOI "), 2017 WL 3581735, *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2017) ; North Fork v. California , 2015 WL 11438206 at *1 ; see Doc. 38 at ¶ 6.3 The DOI also conducted a conformity determination pursuant to the Clean Air Act with respect to the fee-to-trust determination. See Doc. 29-4 at 104-137.

The Secretary did not conduct any other EIS, environmental assessment, or conformity determination with respect to the Madera Site prior to prescribing of gaming procedures.

B. Related Actions

1. Good Faith Litigation

On March 17, 2015, North Fork initiated an action against the State of California to compel the state to negotiate a new tribal-state compact in good faith.

328 F.Supp.3d 1057

North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California v. State of California , E.D.C.A. No. 1:15-cv-419-AWI-SAB, Doc. 1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2015). On November 13, 2015, this Court granted North Fork's motion for judgment on the pleadings and ordered North Fork and California to conclude a compact for the Madera Site within sixty (60) days. North Fork v. California , 2015 WL 11438206 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2015)4 ; 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A), (d)(7)(B). North Fork and California were unable to negotiate and conclude a compact within the 60-day period. North Fork v. California , Doc. 27 at 1 (E.D. Cal. Jan 15, 2016). This Court appointed a mediator, directed the parties to submit their last best offers for a compact to the mediator, and directed the mediator to "select from the two proposed compacts the one which best comports with the terms of [IGRA], ... any other applicable Federal law[,] and with the findings and order (Doc. 25) of th[is] [C]ourt." Id. , Doc. 30 at 1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016); see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iv). The mediator selected North Fork's compact and submitted the compact to North Fork and California. AR 000000001-142; see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(v). California did not consent to the compact within 60-days of the compact having been submitted to it. AR00000001. The mediator informed the Secretary of the Interior that California did not consent to the selected compact. AR00000001; see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii). "On July 29, 2016, the Secretary of the Interior notified North Fork and California that it had issued Secretarial Procedures for the purpose of authorizing class III gaming at the Madera Site." AR00002186-2325.

2. The District of Columbia Action

On December 10, 2012, Stand Up for California! filed an action against the Secretary of the Interior, bringing APA, IRA, IGRA, National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), and Clean Air Act ("CAA") challenges to the Secretary's two-part, fee-to-trust, and environmental impact determinations regarding proposed gaming at the Madera Site. Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of the Interior , No. 1:12-cv-2039-BAH, Doc. 1 (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Id. , Stand Up's Third Amended Complaint, Doc. 103 (Dec. 3, 2014). On December 31, 2012, Picayune filed a similar action against the Secretary regarding the Madera Site. See Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians v. United States , No. 1:12-cv-2071-BAH, Doc. 1 (D.D.C. Dec. 31, 2012). In that action, Picayune alleged, among other things, that the "Assistant Secretary [of the Interior] violated the APA, IGRA, and the IRA by relying on a purported concurrence from the Governor of California that is ultra vires and invalid under California law." Id. , Doc. 1 at ¶ 57.

On January 9, 2013, the District of Columbia district court consolidated the Stand Up and Picayune actions. Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of the Interior , 1:12-cv-2039-BAH, Minute Entry (Jan. 9, 2013). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in early 2015. Id. , Docs. 106, 108, 111-117, 121, 122. The District of Columbia district court ordered additional briefing on the question of whether the State of California was required to be joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Id. , Doc. 135 (Sept. 30, 2015).

While the cross-motions for summary judgment were under submission, the Secretary "prescribed the secretarial procedures mandated by IGRA," as a result of the Good Faith Negotiation Action before this Court. Id. , Docs. 163, 163-1; Stand Up for California! v. Dept. of the Interior , 204 F.Supp.3d 212, 240 (D.D.C. 2016) ("On

328 F.Supp.3d 1058

July 29, 2016, Lawrence S. Roberts, Acting Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, notified the North Fork Tribe and the State of California that, after reviewing the mediator's compact submission, ‘procedures under which the [North Fork Tribe] may conduct Class III gaming consistent with IGRA’ had been issued and, thus, ‘Secretarial Procedures for the conduct of Class III gaming on the Tribe's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Stand Up for California! v. United States Dep't of Interior, 2:16-cv-02681-AWI-EPG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • August 5, 2021
    ...record citations that was set out in the previous summary judgment order. Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 328 F.Supp.3d 1051, 1056-58 (E.D. Cal. 2018); Doc. No. 58. A condensed background is provided here for relevant context and to account for subsequent proceedings......
  • Connecticut v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Civil Action No.: 17-2564 (RC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 29, 2018
    ...judicial estoppel claim relies on Federal Defendants' briefing in Stand Up for Cal.! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior , No. 16-2681, 328 F.Supp.3d 1051, 2018 WL 3473975 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2018). In that case, the plaintiffs claimed that certain secretarial procedures governing a tribe's gamin......
  • Stand Up for California v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, Case No. 2:16-cv-02681-AWI-EPG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • August 5, 2021
    ...record citations that was set out in the previous summary judgment order. Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 328 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1056–58 (E.D. Cal. 2018) ; Doc. No. 58. A condensed background is provided here for relevant context and to account for subsequent proceedi......
  • Stand Up for Cal. v. State, F069302
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 2021
    ...to compel the state to negotiate a new compact in good faith. ( Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior (E.D.Cal. 2018) 328 F.Supp.3d 1051, 1056, affd. in part & revd. in part (9th Cir. 2020) 959 F.3d 1154.) In November 2015, the district court granted North Fork's request an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Stand Up for California! v. United States Dep't of Interior, 2:16-cv-02681-AWI-EPG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • August 5, 2021
    ...record citations that was set out in the previous summary judgment order. Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 328 F.Supp.3d 1051, 1056-58 (E.D. Cal. 2018); Doc. No. 58. A condensed background is provided here for relevant context and to account for subsequent proceedings......
  • Connecticut v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Civil Action No.: 17-2564 (RC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 29, 2018
    ...judicial estoppel claim relies on Federal Defendants' briefing in Stand Up for Cal.! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior , No. 16-2681, 328 F.Supp.3d 1051, 2018 WL 3473975 (E.D. Cal. July 18, 2018). In that case, the plaintiffs claimed that certain secretarial procedures governing a tribe's gamin......
  • Stand Up for California v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, Case No. 2:16-cv-02681-AWI-EPG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • August 5, 2021
    ...record citations that was set out in the previous summary judgment order. Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 328 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1056–58 (E.D. Cal. 2018) ; Doc. No. 58. A condensed background is provided here for relevant context and to account for subsequent proceedi......
  • Stand Up for Cal. v. State, F069302
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 2021
    ...to compel the state to negotiate a new compact in good faith. ( Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior (E.D.Cal. 2018) 328 F.Supp.3d 1051, 1056, affd. in part & revd. in part (9th Cir. 2020) 959 F.3d 1154.) In November 2015, the district court granted North Fork's request an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT