Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05391/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-05391-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES RAYMOND ACRES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BLUE LAKE RANCHERIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-05391-WHO 

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 33

BACKGROUND 

 In this case, plaintiff James Acres seeks to avoid tribal jurisdiction for a case filed against 

him in the Blue Lake Rancheria Tribal Court. He asserts that the bad faith exception to the 

general requirement that plaintiffs exhaust tribal remedies, before bringing federal actions of this 

kind, applies. Blue Lake Rancheria filed a motion to dismiss the case and on December 8, 2016, I 

issued an order permitting Acres to conduct limited discovery relevant to whether Judge Marston, 

the presiding judge in the tribal court matter, had acted in bad faith. Dkt. No. 30. On December 

30, 2016, Blue Lake Rancheria filed a motion for leave to move for reconsideration, explaining 

that Judge Marston has issued a recusal order and will no longer be presiding over the tribal court 

matter. Motion for Leave “Mot.” (Dkt. No. 33). 

 Acres opposes the motion, arguing that Marston’s recusal order should not change the 

court’s analysis because (1) the order is not certified and was sent through a gmail account; (2) 

Judge Marston admits in the order that he declared he was the tribe’s attorney in the Shiomoto

case; (3) Judge Marston will appoint the new tribal judge; and (4) Judge Marston’s prior orders, 

including an order denying Acres’ motion to dismiss, will still be in place. Opposition to Motion 

for Leave at 3 (Dkt. No. 33). Because I conclude that Blue Lake Rancheria has demonstrated a 

Case 3:16-cv-05391-WHO Document 38 Filed 01/11/17 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

change of material facts, its motion for leave is GRANTED. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

 Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) provides: 

A motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration must be made in 

accordance with the requirements of Civil L.R. 7-9. The moving party must 

specifically show reasonable diligence in bringing the motion and one of the 

following: 

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law 

exists from that which was presented to the Court before the entry of the 

interlocutory order for which reconsideration is sought. The party must also show 

that in the exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration 

did not know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or 

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the 

time of such order; or 

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order. 

Civil L.R. 7-9(b). 

 DISCUSSION 

 At the time I issued the December 8, 2016 order, Judge Marston was the presiding judge in 

the tribal case and had issued an order declining to recuse himself. On December 29, 2016, Judge 

Marston sent an order of recusal to the tribal court parties. Order of Recusal, (Dkt. No. 33, Exhibit 

A). Blue Lake Rancheria notes that an alternative judge will be appointed to handle the matter 

within 14 days, or by January 12, 2017. Mot. at 3. Blue Lake Rancheria argues that Judge 

Marston’s recusal order represents a material change in facts and the emergence of new facts since 

Acres’ bad faith argument is primarily related to Judge Marston’s conduct and potential conflicts 

of interest. Id. at 4. It notes that at the December 7, 2016 hearing on Blue Lake Rancheria’s 

motion to dismiss I noted that if “Judge Marston withdrew and somebody else was on the bench” 

Blue Lake might have reason to seek reconsideration. Id. at 3. 

 I agree with Blue Lake Rancheria that Judge Marston’s recusal represents a material 

change in fact. Blue Lake Rancheria was diligent in moving for leave as it filed its motion the day 

after Judge Marston sent his recusal order. Acres’ argument that Judge Marston’s recusal does not 

resolve the bad faith issue is a substantive argument as to the merits of reconsideration and does 

Case 3:16-cv-05391-WHO Document 38 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

not impact whether Blue Lake Rancheria has met the requirements of Civil L.R. 7-9(b). Acres’ 

objections will be considered in opposition to the motion for reconsideration. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons outlined above Blue Lake Rancheria’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for 

Reconsideration is GRANTED. Blue Lake Rancheria must file its motion for reconsideration by 

January 24, 2017. Its memorandum shall focus on why the Court should grant the motion to 

dismiss, Dkt. No. 10, in light of the emergence of the new material facts. Acres may file his 

substantive opposition by February 7, 2017. No reply is allowed absent further order by the Court. 

The hearing on the motion is set for February 22, 2016 at 2 p.m. 

In light of Judge Marston’s recusal, my prior order permitting limited discovery and a 

deposition of Judge Marston is STAYED in all respects and the deposition scheduled for January 

23, 2017 is VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017 

______________________________________ 

WILLIAM H. ORRICK 

United States District Judge 

Case 3:16-cv-05391-WHO Document 38 Filed 01/11/17 Page 3 of 3