Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01630/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01630-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 25:640 Indian Tribal Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On January 4, 2019, the Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Blue Lake 

Rancheria, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, and Robinson Rancheria

(“2019 Tribes”) filed suit against the State of California and Governor Edmund Brown, Jr. 

(“California”), E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:19-cv-0024. The 2019 Tribes assert that California violated 

the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to engage in good faith negotiations with the 

2019 Tribes concerning renewal/extensions of class III gaming compacts. 

The 2019 Tribes were part of a larger group of federally recognized California Indian 

Tribes (whose gaming compacts expire on December 31, 2020 with automatic extension to June 

30, 2022 unless a further compact is agreed to) called the Compact Tribes Steering Committee 

(“CTSC”) formed in 2014. The CTSC sought to negotiate with California as a group to 

renew/extend their gaming compacts. The negotiations did not result in a successful agreement. 

The 2019 Tribes withdrew from the negotiations in January 2019 and filed suit. 

BEAR RIVER BAND OF 

ROHNERVILLE RANCHERIA, a 

federally recognized Indian tribal 

government,

Plaintiff

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and GAVIN 

NEWSOM IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:19-CV-0024 AWI SKO

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-1147 AWI SKO

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-1318 AWI SKO

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-1539 NONE SKO

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-1585 AWI SKO

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-1630 AWI SKO

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-1918 TLN DMC

ORDER RELATING AND 

REASSIGNING CASES

Case 2:20-cv-01630-KES-SKO Document 18 Filed 12/07/20 Page 1 of 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

2

The CTSC continued to negotiate with California until July 2020. Other members of the 

CTSC have now also filed suit against California. Several of these later suits have already been 

related to the earlier filed suit by the 2019 Tribes, E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:19-cv-0024. The Pit River 

Tribe filed E.D. Cal. Case No. 2:20-cv-1918. The Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria filed

N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:20-cv-5574, which was transferred to the Eastern District, E.D. Case No. 

1:20-cv-1539.

In these two suits, the plaintiffs also allege that California violated the federal Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to engage in good faith negotiations. There is significant 

overlap in the subject matter of all the suits as the plaintiffs in all of these suits were members of 

the CTSC which negotiated as a group with California for several years. The plaintiffs have filed 

notices of related cases. 

Local Rules state that “If the Judge to whom the action with the lower or lowest number 

has been assigned determines that assignment of the actions to a single Judge is likely to effect a 

savings of judicial effort or other economies, that Judge is authorized to enter an order reassigning 

all higher numbered related actions to himself or herself.” Local Rule 123(c). To guide this 

determination, the Local Rules also provide that:

An action is related to another action within the meaning of this Rule when

(1) both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a similar 

claim;

(2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event;

(3) both actions involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and 

their assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a 

substantial savings of judicial effort, either because the same result should follow in 

both actions or otherwise; or

(4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of labor if the 

actions were heard by different Judges or Magistrate Judges.

Local Rule 123(a). Here, the cases appear to, in part, involve the same transaction or event and 

involve similar questions of fact and law; assignment to the same judge is likely to effect a 

substantial savings of judicial effort. Local Rule 123(a)(2), (3), and (4). Because the undersigned 

is assigned the lowest numbered related case, the above-entitled cases will be reassigned to the 

Case 2:20-cv-01630-KES-SKO Document 18 Filed 12/07/20 Page 2 of 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

3

dockets of Senior District Judge Anthony Ishii and referred to Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-01630-KES-SKO Document 18 Filed 12/07/20 Page 3 of 3