Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01069/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01069-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1362 Indian Tribal Controversy

---

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 1 All further references to a “Rule” are to the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN

INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN

COMMUNITY, a federally

recognized Indian Tribe,

CASE NO. 2:07-CV-01069-FCD-KJM

Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; and

CALIFORNIA GAMBLING CONTROL

COMMISSION, an agency of the

State of California,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

This matter comes before the court on plaintiff’s, Cachil

Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community’s

(“Colusa”), motion to amend its First Amended Complaint pursuant

to Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 For the

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01069-FCD-KJM Document 21 Filed 01/24/08 Page 1 of 5
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 Because oral argument will not be of material

assistance, the court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. 

E.D. Cal. Local Rule 78-230(h).

2

reasons set forth below,2 plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED; Colusa

may file an amended complaint if it adds the Governor as a party

defendant to its proposed Third Claim for Relief. 

Plaintiff filed a proposed First Amended and Supplemental

Complaint (“FASC”) in this action on November 30, 2007. The

proposed FASC asserts a Third Claim for Relief against the

defendants, the State of California (“State”) and the California

Gambling Control Commission (“CGCC”), for failure to negotiate

amendments to Colusa’s Class III Gaming Compact (“Compact”) with

the State in good faith. (FASC, Exhibit A to Decl. of Jay B.

Shapiro, filed Nov. 30, 2007, ¶¶ 33-37). Colusa seeks an order:

(1) declaring that the State of California failed to negotiate

with Colusa in good faith concerning the amendments of the

Compact and (2) directing the State and Colusa to conclude

amendments to Colusa’s Compact within 60 days from the date of

this court’s order. (Id. at 10). Defendants oppose Colusa’s

motion for leave to file the FASC on the ground that Colusa must

join the Governor as a party defendant. (Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s

Mot. to Amend, filed Jan. 4, 2008, at 2). 

Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a

plaintiff to amend her complaint “once as a matter of course at

any time before a responsive pleading is served.” Fed. R. Civ.

Proc. 15. Otherwise, a plaintiff may amend the complaint only by

written consent of the adverse party or by leave of court. Id.

Pursuant to Rule 15(a), “leave [to amend] is to be freely given

Case 2:07-cv-01069-FCD-KJM Document 21 Filed 01/24/08 Page 2 of 5
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

3

when justice so requires.” “[L]eave to amend should be granted

unless amendment would cause prejudice to the opposing party, is

sought in bad faith, is futile, or creates undue delay.” 

Martinez v. Newport Beach, 125 F.3d 777, 785 (9th Cir. 1997). 

The State of California’s obligation to negotiate in good

faith with Colusa derives from the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

(“IGRA”), at 25 U.S.C. § 2710. The IGRA governs tribal-state

compacts and requires the State to “negotiate with the Indian

tribe in good faith to enter into such compacts.” 25 U.S.C. §

2701(d)(3)(A). If a State fails to negotiate in good faith, the

IGRA provides that a court “shall order the State and the Indian

Tribe to conclude such a compact within a 60 day period.” Id. §

2710(d)(7)(B)(iii). 

The California Constitution delegates the authority to

negotiate the terms of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compacts to

the Governor. Cal. Const. art. IV, § 19(f) (“[T]he Governor is

authorized to negotiate and conclude compacts.”). This

authorization is codified in the California Government Code,

which provides:

The Governor is the designated state officer

responsible for negotiating and executing, on behalf of

the state, tribal-state gaming compacts with federally

recognized Indian tribes located within the State of

California pursuant to the federal Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act of 1988 (U.S.C. Sec. 1166 to 1168,

incl., and 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.) for the purpose

of authorizing class III gaming, as defined in that

act, on Indian lands within the state.

Cal. Gov. Code § 12012.25(d). Thus, it is the Governor’s

responsibility, on behalf of the State, to negotiate with the

Indian Tribes regarding the Compact.

Case 2:07-cv-01069-FCD-KJM Document 21 Filed 01/24/08 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Plaintiff seeks in the FASC for this Court to order the

State and Colusa to conclude amendments to Colusa’s Compact

within 60 days. (FASC at 10). While the IGRA provides that the

state must negotiate with Indian tribes in good faith, California

has delegated that duty to the Governor. Under the existing

statutory scheme, an order requiring the State of California to

negotiate in good faith is most appropriately directed at the

Governor as the official with the authority and responsibility to

implement it. See Hagood v. Southern, 117 U.S. 52, 69 (1886)

(“If the State is named as a defendant, it can be reached . . .

through its officers and agents, and a judgment against it . . .

could be reached and affected through its official

representatives.”). This court cannot accord compete relief if

it cannot order the Governor to negotiate in good faith with

Colusa. See id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 19(a)(1) (“A person

. . . must be joined as a party if: in that person’s absence, the

court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties.”). 

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:07-cv-01069-FCD-KJM Document 21 Filed 01/24/08 Page 4 of 5
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

5

Therefore, because plaintiff’s proposed Third Claim for

Relief is properly brought against the Governor, Colusa’s

proposed FASC that does not include the Governor as a named

defendant is futile. However, because this claim would not be

futile if the Governor is added as a defendant, plaintiff is

GRANTED leave to amend its complaint. Plaintiff may file its

amended complaint within twenty (20) days of this court’s order. 

Defendants shall file an answer or otherwise respond within

twenty (20) days of receipt of the amended complaint. A new

joint status report shall be filed within forty-five (45) days of

defendants’ response. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 24, 2008

Case 2:07-cv-01069-FCD-KJM Document 21 Filed 01/24/08 Page 5 of 5