This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Constitutional Law
Declaratory Relief
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Gavin Newsom, State of California

Published: May 19, 2023 | Result Date: Jan. 27, 2023 | Filing Date: Sep. 15, 2020 |

Case number: 1:20-cv-01318-AWI-SKO Summary Judgment –  Plaintiff

Judge

Anthony W. Ishii

Court

USDC Eastern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Frank R. Lawrence
(Law Office of Frank Lawrence)


Defendant

Timothy M. Muscat
(Office of the Attorney General)


Facts

Bishop Paiute Tribe was a federally recognized Indian tribe and a former member of the Compact Tribes Steering Committee (CTSC), a coalition of twenty-eight federally recognized California Indian tribes. The CTSC wrote to inform the State of California of its formation and desire to begin the negotiation process for new Class III gaming compacts. Bishop was a member of CTSC in 2014 and remained a member until July 6, 2020. Bishop withdrew from negotiations with California and on September 15, 2020, filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging California failed to negotiate in good faith under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). On July 28, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued its published decision in Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California, holding that the IGRA strictly limited the topics that states may include in tribal-state Class II compacts to those directly related to the operation of gaming activities.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff alleged that defendant sought to negotiate for compact provisions that fell well outside of IGRA's permissible topics of negotiation under Chicken Ranch, including provisions concerning tort claims coverage, employee spousal and child support orders, and environmental review and mitigation.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant argued the court should grant summary judgment in plaintiff's favor as to its first claim for relief.

Result

The court granted summary judgment in Bishop's favor consistent with the Ninth Circuit's decision in *Chicken Ranch*.


#140734

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390