Southern District of California – Page 5

Federal Court Dismisses Suit to Force BIA to do More to Protect Eagles affected by Wind Energy

April 13, 2016April 13, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in Protect Our Communities Foundation v. Black (S.D. Cal.):

33 Tule Wind Motion

34-1 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Motion

35-1 US Motion 38 Opposition

43 Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Reply

44 Tule Wind Reply

45 US Reply

EWI Protect Our Communities Order Granting Motion for Judgment on Pleadings_3-29-16

An excerpt:

This case concerns the construction of the second phase of an industrial-scale wind farm and the well-being of eagles who nest in or pass through the same general area. More particularly, Plaintiffs, with the noble goal of protecting these eagles, challenge a federal agency’s approval of the project despite its potential to harm eagles. The issue in this case and for these Motions is not whether the agency and those involved in building the wind farm may simply disregard the eagles’ well-being. Harming or killing eagles is a serious offense that subjects offenders to civil fines, criminal fines, and even imprisonment. That is not in dispute. Rather, the question in this case and for these Motions is whether the agency that Plaintiffs sued—BIA—was obligated to take further steps to protect these birds under federal law. Because BIA did not have a legal obligation to proactively ensure that Tule would not violate other federal laws and because, after BIA issued its decision, there was no remaining major federal administrative agency action that would require supplemental environmental analysis, the Court GRANTS Tule’s, the Tribe’s, and BIA’s Motions.

Pro Se Complaint Challenging Blue Lake Tribal Court Jurisdiction

March 14, 2016March 14, 2016Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the complaint and exhibits in Acres v. Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Court (S.D. Cal.):

Complaint

The tribe’s tribal court complaint against acres begins on page 50 of the pdf above.

Ninth Circuit Rules in Favor of Tribe in $36.2M Compact Dispute

October 26, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher4 Comments

Here is the opinion in Pauma Band of Luiseño Indians v. State of California.

From the court’s syllabus:

Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that the Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians was entitled to rescission of the 2004 Amendment to the 1999 Tribal-State Compact governing operation of Class III, or casino-style, gaming on Pauma’s land.

The panel held that the interpretation of a Compact license pool provision in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Cmty. v. Cal., 618 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2010), applied, such that the State of California would be deemed to have misrepresented a material fact as to how many gaming licenses were available when negotiating with Pauma to amend its Compact. The panel held that, unlike a change in judicial interpretation of a statute or law, the doctrine of retroactivity does not apply to contracts. Once there has been a final judicial interpretation of an ambiguous contract provision, that is and has always been the correct interpretation from the document’s inception.

The panel held that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Pauma’s misrepresentation claim. The panel held that the district court awarded the proper remedy to Pauma by refunding $36.2 million in overpayments, even though the district court mislabeled the remedy as specific performance, rather than rescission and restitution for a voidable contract. The panel held that this equitable remedy fell within the State’s limited waiver of its sovereign immunity in the Compacts, and thus was not barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

On cross-appeal, the panel held that Pauma was not entitled to seek redress under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because the State and Pauma actually reached a gaming Compact.

Dissenting, Chief District Judge Jarvey wrote that the State did not commit the tort of misrepresentation by interpreting the Compact differently than a later court decision. He also wrote that, under the language of the Compact, the State did not waive its sovereign immunity with respect to this claim.

Briefs here.

Tribal Disenrollee (San Pasqual Band of Diegueño Mission Indians) Suit in Federal Court against Interior Fails

October 2, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Alto v. Jewell (S.D. Cal.):

103-2 Alto Motion for Summary J

110-1 Interior Cross Motion

111 Alto Reply

113 Interior Reply

125 DCt Order

We posted on this case here, here, here, and here.

Ninth Circuit Briefs in Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission v. State of California

July 13, 2015July 13, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here:

California Opening Brief

Pauma Answer Brief

California Reply Brief

Pauma Band Reply

Oral argument audio and video.

Lower court materials here.

Federal Court Declines to Dismiss California v. Iipay Nation

June 8, 2015June 9, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in State of California v. Iipay Nation of Santa Ysabel (S.D. Cal.):

15-1 Iipay Nation Motion to Dismiss

18 California Response

19 Iipay Nation Reply

24 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

TRO stage materials are here.

California Valley Miwok Tribe v. California Gambling Control Commission Complaint

March 24, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

1 Complaint

Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Challenge to Pala Disenrollments

March 17, 2015March 17, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the unpublished opinion in Allen v. Smith:

031.1 – Memorandum Disposition(83952089_1)

Excerpt:

This relief sought by the Appellants clearly operates against the Tribe. The
requested relief would prevent the Tribe from disenrolling the Appellants and
compel it to reinstate their membership and tribal benefits. Even the request for
compensatory and punitive damages (to be paid by the Appellees, not the Tribe)
would interfere with the Tribe’s public administration, because the monetary
damages are predicated on this court’s determination that the disenrollment of the Appellants was improper. Thus, we conclude that Appellants’ suit should be
construed as a suit against the Tribe itself.

Briefs and lower court materials here.