Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05706/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-05706-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. 1

1

Case No. C-07-02681-JF-PVT

Case No. C-07-05706-JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC3)

**E-Filed 3/30/10**

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WILTON MIWOK RANCHERIA, a formerly

federally recognized Indian Tribe, ITS MEMBERS

and DOROTHY ANDREWS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KENNETH L. SALAZAR, et al.,

Defendants.

Me-Wuk INDIAN COMMUNITY OF THE 

WILTON RANCHERIA,

Case No. C-07-02681-JF-PVT

Case No. C-07-05706-JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 1

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

Plaintiffs,

v.

KENNETH L. SALAZAR, et al.,

Defendants.

In an order dated February 23, 2010, the Court granted motions to intervene brought by

the City of Elk Grove (“City”) and the County of Sacramento (“County”). The Court also

granted the joint request of the City and County to certify a jurisdictional issue for interlocutory

appeal and to stay execution of the judgment to the extent that the judgment allows for land to be

taken into trust by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Case 5:07-cv-05706-JF Document 96 Filed 03/30/10 Page 1 of 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

2

Case No. C-07-02681-JF-PVT

Case No. C-07-05706-JF

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(JFLC3)

Plaintiff Me-Wuk Indian Community of the Wilton Rancheria (the “Me-Wuk Plaintiffs”)

seek leave to file a motion to reconsider the February 23 order with respect to the City’s motion

to intervene. The Me-Wuk Plaintiffs contend that the Court “failed to consider the material fact

that City, by its own admission, has no taxing or regulatory interest in the former Rancheria lands

at issue and therefore no protectable interest under Rule 24(a)(2).” (Mot. for Leave 1.) Both the

City and the County argue that the Me-Wuk Plaintiffs’ motion for leave violates Local Rule 7-9

by repeating arguments the Me-Wuk Plaintiffs made in their opposition to the motions to

intervene. They also point out that the Me-Wuk Plaintiffs do not assert that the Court’s order

was in error with respect to the County. (See also Dkt. No. 59 at 5 n.3 (“But even if these

arguments [regarding the City’s lack of regulatory authority over the land in question] had some

merit they would not affect the interests of the County of Sacramento, which unquestionably has

taxing, regulatory and jurisdictional powers over the affected parcels. Thus, if intervention is

granted to the County of Sacramento, as it should be, there is no good rationale for preventing the

City of Elk Grove from participating along with it.”).) 

The Me-Wuk Plaintiffs are correct that the interests of the City and the County are

distinct and that the February 23 order did not address that distinction fully. However, the

distinction is without a difference with respect to both the current status and the ultimate

disposition of the pending interlocutory appeal. Either the Court has subject matter jurisdiction

or it does not. In the present posture of the case, reconsideration would serve no practical

purpose. Accordingly, leave to file a motion for reconsideration will be denied, without

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 30, 2010 __________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:07-cv-05706-JF Document 96 Filed 03/30/10 Page 2 of 2