Northern District of California – Page 11

Reversing the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the State of California did not violate the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to negotiate in good faith for a tribal-state gaming compact with Big Lagoon Rancheria.

The panel held that a tribe must have jurisdiction over “Indian lands” in order to file suit to compel negotiations under IGRA. Specifically, the tribe must have jurisdiction over the Indian lands upon which the gaming activity is to be conducted.

The panel held that although the State’s objection to the “Indian lands” requirement could be waived because it was not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction, the State preserved this issue for review. The panel held that the parcel at issue was not Indian lands, which include lands held in trust for a tribe, because under Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009), the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ authority to take lands in trust for a tribe extends only to tribes under federal jurisdiction in 1934. Because Big Lagoon was not such a tribe, the BIA lacked authority to purchase the parcel in trust for Big Lagoon in 1994. Accordingly, Big Lagoon could not demand negotiations to conduct gaming on the parcel, and it could not sue to compel negotiations if the State fails to negotiate in good faith.

Dissenting, Judge Rawlinson wrote that the parcel was Indian lands under IGRA because under Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians v. NGV Gaming, 531 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2008), the State could not collaterally attack the BIA’s designation of trust lands years after its administrative and legal remedies had expired.

Briefs are here.

Diné CARE Loses Suit to Force EPA to Impose New Rules on Navajo Generating Station

December 11, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Diné CARE v. EPA (N.D. Cal.):

40 Diné CARE Motion for Summary J

41 EPA Cross Motion

44 Salt River Project Cross Motion

55 DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

Now before the Court are the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs Diné Care and National Parks Conservation Association (collectively “Plaintiffs”) move to have the Court issue an order requiring Defendant, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Lisa Jackson in her official capacity as administrator (collectively “EPA”), issue a final rule within one year that establishes Best Available Retrofit Technology for the Navajo Generating Station. The EPA and the intervenor-defendant Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (“Intervenor”) each cross-move for summary judgment on the basis that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs’ complaint under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”). Having considered the parties’ pleadings and the relevant legal authority, the Court hereby GRANTS the EPA’s and Intervenor’s motions for summary judgment. The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction of this citizen suit and dismisses the action.

Federal Dismisses Robison Rancheria Disenrollee Complaint without Prejudice

October 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the order in Harrison v. Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Business Council (N.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint wo Prejudice

Briefs are here.

Complaint is here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Challenge to Repatriation of “La Jolla Skeletons” to Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee

September 13, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the briefs in White v. University of California:

White Opening Brief

Kumeyaay Cultural Repatriation Committee Answer Brief

University Answer Brief

White Reply

Lower court materials are here.

Materials in Disenrollee Challenge to Eviction from Tribal Housing at Robinson Rancheria

August 30, 2013October 4, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in the pending matter Harrison v. Robinson Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Business Council (N.D. Cal.):

Harrison Complaint

Robison Motion to Dismiss

Harrison Opposition

Robison Reply

Federal Court Dismisses Challenge to Paskenta Band Governance

August 29, 2013Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Swearinger v. Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians Tribal Business Council (N.D. Cal.):

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

Swearinger Complaint

Paskenta Band Motion to Dismiss

Swearinger Opposition

Paskenta Band Reply

An excerpt:

Plaintiffs are “enrolled members of the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians,” a federally recognized Indian tribe with “approximately 240 members.” Docket No. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13-14. Although Congress revoked PBNI’s status as a federally recognized tribe in 1958, it later restored the tribe’s federally recognized status in 1994 by enacting the Paskenta Band Restoration Act (PBRA), Pub. L. No. 103-454, §§ 301-03, 108 Stat. 4791 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. §§ 1300m et seq.). Compl. ¶ 21. The PBRA directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an “election for the purpose of adopting a constitution and bylaws for the Tribe.” 25 U.S.C. § 1300m-6. The PBRA further states that, after the tribe adopts a constitution, “such tribal constitution shall govern membership in the Tribe.” Id. § 1300m-4(b).