Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_79-cv-01710/USCOURTS-cand-5_79-cv-01710-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC. 

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

For the Northern District of California

**E-Filed 3/7/2014**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TILLIE HARDWICK, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

 Defendants. ______________________________________

NISENAN TRIBE OF THE NEVADA CITY 

RANCHERIA; RICHARD JOHNSON, in his 

official capacity as Tribal Chairman and in his 

individual capacity as the heir/legatee/successor 

to the distributees Peter Johnson and Margaret 

Johnson,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

S.M.R. JEWELL, Secretary of the Interior; 

KEVIN K. WASHBURN, Assistant Secretary – Indian Affairs for the United States Department 

of the Interior,1

 Defendants.

Case No. 5:79-cv-01710-JF

Case No. 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION 

TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE IN 

HARDWICK; GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTION TO AUGMENT THE 

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD IN NISENAN; 

GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IN

NISENAN; AND DISMISSING THE NISENAN

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

 1 S.M.R. Jewell and Kevin W. Washburn are substituted as the defendants in this action in place of 

their predecessors, Ken Salazar and Larry Echo Hawk. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d).

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 1 of 13
2

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC.

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

For the Northern District of California

Plaintiffs move to correct a clerical mistake in the Hardwick2 action and to augment the 

administrative record in the Nisenan3 action; Defendants move to dismiss the operative first 

amended complaint (“FAC”) in the Nisenan action or, in the alternative, for judgment on the 

pleadings. Hardwick ECF No. 356; Nisenan ECF Nos. 87, 93. The Court concludes that these 

motions are appropriate for disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). 

For the reasons discussed below, all three motions will be granted, and the Nisenan action will be 

dismissed with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

Early in the twentieth century, the United States sought to improve “the landless, homeless 

or penurious state of many California Indians” by purchasing numerous small tracts of land known 

as “rancherias.” Williams v. Gover, 490 F.3d 785, 787 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). The United States held these lands in trust for Indians who resided thereon. Table 

Bluff Band of Indians v. Andrus, 532 F. Supp. 255, 258 (N.D. Cal. 1981). Trust lands could not be 

taxed or conveyed to others. Id. “The United States controlled the rancheria lands under the special 

fiduciary duty owed by the United States to the Indian people.” Id. Among the rancherias 

established during this time frame was the Nevada City Rancheria, which was established by 

executive order of President Woodrow Wilson on May 6, 1913. Nisenan Admin. R. (“AR”) 001.4

A. Rancheria Act

In 1958, Congress passed the California Rancheria Termination Act (“Rancheria Act” or 

“Act”), which provided that the lands of forty-one enumerated California rancherias were to be 

removed from trust status and distributed to the individual Indians of those rancherias. Cal. 

Rancheria Termination Act, Pub. L. No. 85-671, 72 Stat. 619 (1958), amended by Pub. L. 88-419, 

 2 Tillie Hardwick, et al. v. United States, et al., No. 5:79-cv-01710-JF.

3 Nisenan Tribe of the Nevada City Rancheria, et al. v. S.M.R. Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, et 

al., No. 5:10-cv-00270-JF. 

4 The United States manually filed the administrative record in Nisenan on October 30, 2012. 

Nisenan ECF No. 79.

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 2 of 13
3

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC.

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

For the Northern District of California

78 Stat. 390 (1964).5 The Act directed the Indians of each enumerated rancheria, or the Secretary of 

the Interior after consulting them, to prepare a plan for distributing the rancheria’s lands or for 

selling the lands and distributing the proceeds. Id. § 2(a). Upon approval of such plan by the 

Secretary of the Interior, general notice of the plan was to be given and individual Indians were to 

be afforded an opportunity to object. Id. § 2(b). Upon subsequent approval of the plan by a 

majority of adult Indians who were to participate in the distribution, the plan was to be executed. Id.

Prior to distribution, the Secretary of the Interior was to complete certain tasks, including making 

improvements to rancheria lands and appointing guardians to protect the rights of Indians who were 

minors or otherwise in need of assistance in conducting their affairs. Id. §§ 2, 3, 8. 

Under the Rancheria Act, approval of a distribution plan was to be considered final; the 

distribution of assets was “not be the basis for any claim against the United States.” Id. § 10(a). 

Upon final approval of a plan, the Secretary of the Interior was to revoke the tribal constitution and 

corporate charter adopted by the Indians of the subject rancheria. Id. § 11. Following distribution, 

former rancheria lands no longer would be exempt from state and federal taxes. Id. § 2(d). 

Moreover, Indians who received any part of a rancheria’s assets, and the dependent members of 

their immediate families, no longer would be entitled to federal services or immunities based on 

Indian status. Id. § 10(b). 

B. Termination of the Nevada City Rancheria

The Nevada City Rancheria was one of the forty-one rancherias enumerated by the 

Rancheria Act. Id. § 1. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) prepared a distribution plan dated 

June 8, 1959. AR 189-192. The plan indicated that: Peter Johnson and his wife Margaret Johnson

(“the Johnsons”) were the only Indians living on the Rancheria; the Johnsons were the only 

individuals entitled to share in distribution of the Rancheria lands and assets; the Johnsons had 

requested that the BIA sell the Rancheria lands and assets on their behalf; no minor children would 

 5 On August 11, 1964, the Rancheria Act was amended to provide for the distribution of lands and 

assets of any California rancheria upon request by a majority vote of the adult Indians of the 

rancheria. Cal. Rancheria Termination Act, Pub. L. No. 85-671, 72 Stat. 619 (1958), amended by

Pub. L. 88-419, 78 Stat. 390 (1964). The Nevada City Rancheria lands at issue here were 

distributed prior to the date of the amendment. 

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 3 of 13
4

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC.

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

For the Northern District of California

receive funds from the sale of the Rancheria lands and assets; and the Johnsons were capable of 

handling their own affairs. Id. On July 17, 1959, the acting BIA Area Director sent the BIA 

Commissioner a letter stating that general notice of the distribution plan had been given on June 16, 

1959, and no objections had been received. AR 199. On July 29, 1959, the BIA Commissioner 

responded by letter, advising that the distribution plan was approved and should be presented to the 

Johnsons for their acceptance. AR 201. 

On August 4, 1959, the BIA Area Director sent the Johnsons a letter informing them that the 

distribution plan had been approved by the United States and that a general meeting of distributees 

would be held for the purpose of voting on the plan. AR 202. The letter advised that the Johnsons 

could vote by written ballot in lieu of attending the general meeting. Id. On August 14, 1959, both 

Peter and Margaret Johnson voted to approve the distribution plan. AR 212. However, distribution 

was delayed by other individuals claiming mining rights in Rancheria lands. AR 224. The 

Johnsons were permitted to remain on the property during this period of delay. Id. Margaret died 

on May 24, 1963. AR 256. A few days later, on May 27, 1963, the Rancheria lands were sold for 

$20,500. AR 258. The grant deed was delivered to the purchasers on June 10, 1963. AR 261. 

On September 22, 1964, the Secretary of the Interior published a Notice stating as follows:

Notice is hereby given that the Indians named under the Rancherias listed below are 

no longer entitled to any of the services performed by the United States for Indians 

because of their status as Indians, and all statutes of the United States which affect 

Indians because of their status as Indians, shall be inapplicable to them, and the laws 

of the several States shall apply to them in the same manner as they apply to other 

citizens or persons within their jurisdiction. Title to the lands on the Rancherias has 

passed from the United States Government under the distribution plan of each 

Rancheria.

29 Fed. Reg. 13,146 (Sept. 22, 1964), copy provided at AR 340-42. The Notice listed the Nevada 

City Rancheria and identified Peter Johnson as the sole distributee. Id. 

C. Hardwick Action

In 1979, individuals from a number of terminated rancherias, including the Nevada City 

Rancheria, filed the Hardwick action in this district . Hardwick Compl., attached as Ex. A to Pls.’ 

Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss, Nisenan ECF No. 96-1. The Hardwick plaintiffs sought restoration of their 

status as Indians, entitlement to federal Indian benefits, and the right to reestablish their tribes as 

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 4 of 13
5

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC.

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

For the Northern District of California

formal government entities. Id. In 1980, Judge Williams certified a class consisting of all persons 

who received assets of thirty-four enumerated rancherias pursuant to distribution plans prepared 

under the Rancheria Act; any heirs or legatees of such persons; and any Indian successors in interest 

to real property so distributed. Order Re: Class Cert., attached as Ex. B. to Pls.’ Opp. to Mot. to 

Dismiss, Nisenan ECF No. 96-2. 

In 1983, the Hardwick court entered a “Stipulation For Entry Of Judgment” (“1983 

Stipulation”). Hardwick 1983 Stipulation, attached as Ex. D to Pls.’ Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss, 

Nisenan ECF No. 96-2. The 1983 Stipulation divided the class members into three subclasses. The 

first subclass consisted of individuals who received assets of seventeen enumerated rancherias6; the 

United States agreed to restore those individuals to Indian status, restore recognition of their tribes 

as Indian entities, and provide a mechanism by which individuals holding former rancheria lands 

could reconvey those lands to the United States to be held in trust. Id. at ¶¶ 1-8. The second 

subclass consisted of individuals who received assets of twelve different enumerated rancherias7; as 

to those individuals, the action was dismissed without prejudice. Id. at ¶ 14. The third subclass 

consisted of individuals whose claims were barred under the doctrine of res judicata; as to those 

individuals, the action was dismissed with prejudice. Id. at ¶¶ 15-19.

For unknown reasons, the 1983 Stipulation failed to mention the Nevada City Rancheria. 

See id. ¶¶ 1-19. On May 20, 1992, Judge Williams dismissed the Hardwick action and closed the 

case. Hardwick ECF No. 258.

C. Nisenan Action

On January 20, 2010 – more than forty years after the Nevada City Rancheria’s lands were 

 6 The seventeen rancherias were: (1) Big Valley; (2) Blue Lake; (3) Buena Vista; (4) Chicken 

Ranch; (5) Cloverdale; (6) Elk Valley; (7) Greenville; (8) Mooretown; (9) North Fork; (10) 

Picayune; (11) Pinoleville; (12) Potter Valley; (13) Quartz Valley; (14) Redding; (15) Redwood 

Valley; (16) Rohnerville; and (17) Smith River. Hardwick 1983 Stipulation at ¶ 1, attached as Ex. 

D to Pls.’ Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss, Nisenan ECF No. 96-2.

7 The twelve rancherias were: (1) Graton; (2) Scotts Valley; (3) Guideville; (4) Strawberry Valley; 

(5) Cache Creek; (6) Paskenta; (7) Ruffeys; (8) Mark West; (9) Wilton; (10) El Dorado; (11) Chico;

and (12) Mission Creek. Hardwick 1983 Stipulation at ¶ 14, attached as Ex. D to Pls.’ Opp. to Mot. 

to Dismiss, Nisenan ECF No. 96-2.

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 5 of 13
6

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC.

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

For the Northern District of California

sold and more than seventeen years after Hardwick was closed – the Nisenan Maidu Tribe of the 

Nevada City Rancheria filed an action challenging the sale of the Rancheria’s lands and the 

termination of the Tribe. Nisenan ECF No. 1. The Nisenan action was related to the Hardwick

action under this Court’s Civil Local Rules. Order Relating Cases, Nisenan ECF No. 21. 

On August 5, 2011, the Nisenan Maidu Tribe filed a motion for leave to proceed with its 

claims in the Hardwick action. Pl.’s Mot to Reopen Hardwick, Nisenan ECF No. 48. The Tribe

argued that those claims were still viable because they had not been disposed of by the Hardwick

judgment. Id. On September 22, 2011, this Court issued an order deferring consideration of the 

Tribe’s motion, noting that despite the Tribe’s references to Hardwick as “pending,” the case had 

been closed since 1992. Order Deferring Consideration of Pl.’s Mot. at 5 n.4, Nisenan ECF No. 67. 

The Court opined that the proper procedural vehicle for seeking to reopen Hardwick was a motion 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Id. at 6. However, the Court indicated that it 

would not be inclined to grant relief under Rule 60(b) unless the Nisenan Maidu Tribe could 

demonstrate that its members would have been in the subclass entitled to relief under the Hardwick

settlement and not in one of the subclasses whose claims were dismissed. Id. at 6-7.

On October 30, 2012, the United States filed the administrative record in the Nisenan action. 

Nisenan ECF No. 79. The Nisenan Maidu Tribe thereafter abandoned its attempt to reopen 

Hardwick, conceding that its members would have been in the second Hardwick subclass of 

individuals whose claims were dismissed without prejudice. Pl.’s Mot. for Correction of Clerical 

Mistake at 5, Hardwick ECF No. 356. The Tribe now asserts that the Nevada City Rancheria’s 

omission from the list of rancherias enumerated in connection with the second Hardwick subclass

was the result of a clerical error, and it requests that the error be corrected pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 60(a). Id. The Tribe also requests that the Court dismiss claims relating to the 

Nevada City Rancheria from Hardwick without prejudice and that such dismissal be effective as of 

the date of the dismissal order rather than nunc pro tunc. Id. at 7.

On March 13, 2013, the Nisenan Maidu Tribe filed the operative first amended complaint

(“FAC”), adding an individual, Richard Johnson, as a named plaintiff both in his official capacity as 

Tribal Chairman and in his individual capacity as the heir/legatee/successor to Peter and Margaret 

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 6 of 13
7

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC.

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

For the Northern District of California

Johnson. Nisenan ECF no. 84. Claims 1-4 of the FAC assert that during the process of distributing 

the lands of the Nevada City Rancheria and terminating the Tribe’s status, Defendants breached 

obligations imposed by the Rancheria Act and by their fiduciary duty to Plaintiffs. Claim 5 of the 

FAC seeks review of those alleged wrongs pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 

5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to augment the administrative record 

with documents that they contend are relevant and support their claims. Defendants oppose the 

motion to augment and seek dismissal of the Nisenan action with prejudice.

II. MOTION TO CORRECT CLERICAL MISTAKE IN HARDWICK

The Nisenan Maidu Tribe asserts that the Nevada City Rancheria was one of the rancherias 

that was the subject of the Hardwick litigation; claims arising from distribution of the Nevada City 

Rancheria’s lands were subject to dismissal without prejudice pursuant to the terms of the 1983 

Stipulation; and the Nevada City Rancheria was omitted from the 1983 Stipulation as result of a 

clerical mistake. The Tribe requests that the Court correct that mistake.

“The court may correct a clerical mistake or a mistake arising from oversight or omission 

whenever one is found in a judgment, order, or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). The 

record strongly suggests that the Nevada City Rancheria in fact was omitted from the 1983 

Stipulation as a result of a clerical mistake. The Nevada City Rancheria was listed on the 

“Summary Sheet” of “Terminated Rancherias” that was attached to the Hardwick complaint as 

Exhibit A. Hardwick Compl., attached as Ex. 1 to Mot. to Correct Clerical Error, Hardwick ECF 

No. 356-1. The Nevada City Rancheria also was one of the thirty-four rancherias enumerated in the 

Hardwick court’s order granting class certification. Order Re: Class Cert., attached as Ex. 4. to Mot. 

to Correct Clerical Error, Hardwick ECF No. 356-5. The attorney who acted as lead plaintiffs’ 

counsel has submitted a declaration saying that Nevada City Rancheria was a party to the Hardwick

action. Decl. of David Rapport ¶¶ 14-15, Nisenan ECF No. 37. The attorney who acted as lead 

counsel for the federal defendants has submitted a declaration stating that he does not know why the 

Nevada City Rancheria was omitted from the 1983 Stipulation but he believes that the Nevada City 

Rancheria was omitted from the 1983 Stipulation as a result of a clerical error. Decl. of Paul Locke 

¶¶ 5-7, Nisenan ECF No. 38.

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 7 of 13
8

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC.

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

For the Northern District of California

The Tribe asserts, and Defendants do not dispute, that had the Nevada City Rancheria been 

included in the 1983 Stipulation the Tribe’s members would have been in the second subclass whose 

claims were dismissed without prejudice. Defs.’ Opp. at 2, Hardwick ECF No. 359. Defendants 

nonetheless oppose the motion to correct, arguing that there is insufficient evidence to show that the 

Nevada City Rancheria was omitted from the 1983 Stipulation because of a clerical mistake. Id. at 

2-3. However, Defendants offer no alternative explanation for the omission of the Nevada City 

Rancheria. Based upon the record as a whole, the Court concludes that the Nevada City Rancheria 

was omitted from the 1983 Stipulation as a result of a clerical mistake. 

Defendants point out that if the motion to correct is granted, the Nisenan Maidu Tribe and 

the Nevada City Rancheria may be able to take advantage of a provision of the 1983 Stipulation 

limiting Defendants’ ability to assert a laches defense. Defendants argue that they would be 

prejudiced if that limitation were extended to the Nisenan Maidu Tribe at this late date. However, 

the fact that the Court’s correction of its clerical error may afford the Tribe and the Nevada City 

Rancheria an additional defense does not constitute a basis for the Court to decline to correct the 

error.

Without citation to authority, the Tribe requests that the Court grant its motion effective as 

of the date of the present order rather than nunc pro tunc to the date of the 1983 Stipulation. Rule 

60(a) motions generally are treated as motions for relief nunc pro tunc, and the Tribe does not offer 

a compelling reason why the Court should depart from that practice. See, e.g., Miller v. 

Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 527 (9th Cir. 1983) (equating request for entry nunc pro 

tunc with Rule 60(a) motion); Retail Clerks Union v. Food Employers Council, Inc., 351 F.2d 525, 

528 (9th Cir. 1965) (discussing Rule 60(a) modification of an injunction nunc pro tunc); Ford v. 

City of Cape Girardeau, 151 F.R.D. 116, 117 (E.D. Mo. 1993) (amending judgment nunc pro tunc

pursuant to Rule 60(a)). The Rule 60(a) motion will be granted nunc pro tunc to the date of the 

1983 Stipulation.

III. MOTION TO AUGMENT ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD IN NISENAN

On October 29, 2012, Defendants filed an administrative record containing fifty-two 

documents in the Nisenan action. Nisenan ECF No. 78. Plaintiffs attached nineteen additional 

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 8 of 13
9

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC.

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

For the Northern District of California

documents to their FAC filed March 13, 2013. Nisenan ECF No. 84. The parties subsequently 

agreed that eleven of the additional nineteen documents should be included in the administrative 

record, and Defendants filed a supplement to the administrative record on May 22, 2013. Nisenan

ECF No. 91. Plaintiffs now move to add the remaining eight documents.

Plaintiffs’ motion is governed by the APA, which provides the waiver of sovereign 

immunity in this case.8

 See 5 U.S.C. § 702. The APA provides for judicial review of “final 

agency action” and “[a]gency action made reviewable by statute.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. The agency 

action will be set aside if it is “unsupported by substantial evidence or arbitrary, capricious, an abuse 

of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.” Thompson v. United States Dep’t of 

Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

“[J]udicial review is to be based on the full administrative record before the agency when it made its 

decision.” Id. at 555-56. “The whole administrative record, however, is not necessarily those 

documents that the agency has compiled and submitted as ‘the’ administrative record.” Id. at 555 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The record to be reviewed “consists of all 

documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by agency decision-makers and includes 

evidence contrary to the agency’s position.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“The reviewing court can go outside the administrative record but should consider such evidence 

relevant to the substantive merits of the agency decision only for the limited purpose of background 

information or to determine whether the agency considered all the relevant factors.” Id. 

The agency actions about which Plaintiffs complain are Defendants’ termination of the 

Nevada City Rancheria without first taking certain actions required by the Rancheria Act, and 

Defendants’ failure to reinstate the Nevada City Rancheria and the Nisenan Maidu Tribe to 

protected Indian status. FAC ¶¶ 112-16, Nisenan ECF No. 84. As noted above, the Nevada City 

Rancheria lands were sold in 1963 and members of the Nevada City Rancheria were stripped of 

 8 The FAC asserts waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to “the APA, and the United States’ 

fiduciary and trustee obligations owed to the Nevada City Rancheria and its members.” FAC ¶ 7, 

Nisenan ECF No. 84. However, “[t]ribes cannot allege a common law cause of action for breach of 

trust that is wholly separate from any statutorily granted right.” Gros Ventre Tribe v. United States, 469 F.3d 801, 810 (9th Cir. 2006). The APA is the only statute identified in the FAC that provides 

for waiver of sovereign immunity.

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 9 of 13
10

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC.

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

For the Northern District of California

their Indian status by means of a notice placed in the Federal Register in 1964. The Nevada City 

Rancheria and the Tribe have not been reinstated to Indian status since them. 

It does not appear that the eight documents at issue would have been materials directly

considered in taking these agency actions. One document is a letter dated 1936 – well before the 

enactment of the Rancheria Act in 1958 – discussing the Nevada City Rancheria; five documents are

BIA letters, memoranda, or reports dated between 1956 and 1958, discussing other rancherias or the 

Rancheria Act generally; one document is a 1975 memorandum from the Commissioner on Indian 

Affairs interpreting the Rancheria Act; and one document is a 1978 notice in the Federal Register 

describing the terms of judgments entered in other lawsuits. Arguably, the documents may have 

been considered indirectly by agency decision-makers, as they all relate to the Nevada City 

Rancheria, to the Rancheria Act as applied to other rancherias, or to the Rancheria Act generally. 

Even if the documents were not actually considered by Defendants when taking the agency actions 

challenged here, they provide useful background information. Defendants have not articulated any 

prejudice that would result from the Court’s consideration of the documents. Accordingly, the 

motion to augment the administrative record also will be granted.

IV. MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IN NISENAN

Defendants seek dismissal of the FAC or, in the alternative, judgment on the pleadings. 

Because Defendants filed an answer to the FAC before filing the present motion, the motion 

properly is construed as a motion for judgment on the pleadings rather than as a motion to dismiss. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) must be made before responsive 

pleading); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought after 

pleadings are closed); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 1980) (a Rule 12 motion 

filed after an answer may be construed as a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c)).

Because a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is “functionally identical” 

to a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the same legal standard applies to both motions. 

Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). A motion to dismiss tests 

the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff’s claims. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). 

When determining whether a claim has been stated, the Court accepts as true all well-pled factual 

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 10 of 13
11

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC.

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

For the Northern District of California

allegations and construes them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Reese v. BP Exploration 

(Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 690 (9th Cir. 2011). However, the Court need not “accept as true 

allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit” or “allegations 

that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.” In re 

Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). While a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it “must contain sufficient 

factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A 

claim is facially plausible when it “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the 

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

As noted above, the APA provides the only waiver of sovereign immunity for the claims 

asserted in the FAC. The APA does not contain a specific statute of limitations; however, in 

general “every civil action commenced against the United States shall be barred unless the

complaint is filed within six years after the right of action first accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). 

“Indian Tribes are not exempt from statutes of limitations governing actions against the United 

States.” Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe v. United States, 895 F.2d 588, 592 (9th Cir. 1990).

On their face, the claims relating to termination of the Nevada City Rancheria accrued in 

1964 when the notice of termination was published in the Federal Register. Plaintiffs filed the 

Nisenan action in January 2010, well outside the limitations period. With respect to the claims 

relating to Defendants’ failure to reinstate the Nevada City Rancheria and the Nisenan Maidu Tribe, 

Plaintiffs contend that those claims were tolled during the pendency of the Hardwick action. 

However, even assuming that the claims had not expired before the filing of Hardwick and that they 

were tolled during its pendency, Hardwick was closed in 1992. Plaintiffs filed the Nisenan action 

more than six years later, in January 2010. Accordingly, all of the claims asserted in the Nisenan

action appear to be time-barred.

Plaintiffs assert that Defendants waived the defense of statute of limitations by failing to 

raise it in their answer in Hardwick. However, Defendants raised the defense in their answers to 

both the complaint and FAC in the Nisenan action. See Nisenan ECF Nos. 13, 88. Plaintiffs argue 

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 11 of 13
12

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC.

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

For the Northern District of California

that Defendants are judicially estopped from “taking contrary positions” in the Hardwick and 

Nisenan actions. “Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine invoked by a court at its discretion.” 

United States v. Ibrahim, 522 F.3d 1003, 1009 (9th Cir. 2008). When deciding whether to apply the 

doctrine, a court considers: “(1) whether a party’s later position is clearly inconsistent with its 

original position; (2) whether the party has successfully persuaded the court of the earlier position;

and (3) whether allowing the inconsistent position would allow the party to derive an unfair 

advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). “[J]udicial estoppel seeks to prevent the deliberate manipulation of the courts, and 

therefore should not apply when a party’s prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake.” Id.

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

The Court concludes that judicial estoppel is not warranted in Nisenan. The fact that 

Defendants did not assert the statute of limitations in Hardwick is not “inconsistent” with their 

assertion of the defense in a different case filed thirty years later. Hardwick was a class action 

involving numerous rancherias and tribes. The record does not disclose why the statute of 

limitations was not raised as a defense. Hardwick ultimately settled, and the statute of limitations 

never was addressed by the Court. In contrast, Defendants asserted the statute of limitations at the 

first available opportunity in Nisenan. The Court is at a loss to understand how Defendants’ 

assertion of a limitations defense in Nisenan allows Defendants to “derive an unfair advantage” over 

Plaintiffs.

It is clear from this record that Plaintiffs have a deep and sincere desire to regain federal 

recognition of Indian status. However, the Nisenan action – filed more than forty years after 

termination of the Nevada City Rancheria and more than seventeen years after Hardwick was closed 

– simply was filed too late. “Statutes of limitation are primarily designed to assure fairness to 

defendants and to promote the theory that ‘even if one has a just claim it is unjust not to put the 

adversary on notice to defend within the period of limitation and that the right to be free of stale 

claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them.’” Albillo-De Leon v. Gonzales, 

410 F.3d 1090, 1095 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Burnett v. N.Y. Cent. R.R. Co., 380 U.S. 424, 428 

(1965)).

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 12 of 13
13

Case Nos. 5:79-CV-01710-JF, 5:10-cv-00270-JF

ORDER GRANTING PLS.’ MOTION TO CORRECT A CLERICAL MISTAKE ETC.

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

For the Northern District of California

V. ORDER

Accordingly, and good cause therefor appearing,

(1) the motion to correct a clerical mistake in Hardwick is GRANTED;

(2) the motion to augment the record in Nisenan is GRANTED;

(3) the motion for judgment on the pleadings in Nisenan is GRANTED without leave to 

 amend; and

(4) the Nisenan action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

DATED: March 7, 2014

_________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:79-cv-01710-JF Document 361 Filed 03/07/14 Page 13 of 13