Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02567/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02567-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

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 - 11cv2567

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLORIDA GIRMAI,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 11CV2567 JLS (POR)

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS

(ECF No. 4)

vs.

RINCON BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS,

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT

CORPORATION, INC., CAESARS

ENTERTAINMENT OPERATING

COMPANY, HARRAH’S RINCON

CASINO AND RESORT, and DOES 1 TO

20,

Defendant.

On August 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California against

Defendants in negligence and premises liability for an incident that occurred on September 4,

2009. (Compl., ECF No 1-1) Defendants removed the action to federal court on November 3,

2011. (Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1) Defendants thereafter moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s

complaint on November 10, 2011. (Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 4)

On November 14, 2011, the Court set a briefing schedule on Defendants’ motion. (Order,

Nov. 14, 2011, ECF No. 6) Pursuant to the briefing schedule, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’

motion was due by December 15, 2011. (Id.) Plaintiff never filed an opposition, and on

December 22, 2011, Defendants filed a reply indicating that Plaintiff “has failed to file or serve

any opposition to the motion to dismiss.” (Reply in Supp., ECF No. 7) As of the date of this

Order, Plaintiff has failed to oppose Defendants’ motion.

Case 3:11-cv-02567-JLS-POR Document 9 Filed 02/16/12 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

1

 Local Rule 7.1.e.2 requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or statement of

nonopposition no later than fourteen days prior to the noticed hearing, unless otherwise provided by

court order. As indicated, Plaintiff did not file an opposition within the time directed by this Court’s

November 14, 2011, Order. In that Order, the Court additionally set the hearing date on Defendants’

motion for February 16, 2012. Thus, even under the time limits prescribed by Local Rule 7.1.e.2,

Plaintiff has failed to file a timely opposition.

- 2 - 11cv2567

“The Ninth Circuit has held a district court may properly grant an unopposed motion to

dismiss pursuant to a local rule where the local rule permits, but does not require, the granting of a

motion for failure to respond.” Navarro v. Greenlight Fin. Servs., No. 10cv1631, 2010 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 111018, at *3–4 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010) (citing Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th

Cir. 1995)). Under Civil Local Rule 7.1.f.3.c, “[i]f an opposing party fails to file the papers in the

manner requested by Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2, that failure may constitute a consent to the granting

of a motion or other request for ruling by the court.”1

 

Thus, pursuant to the Local Rules, the Court may grant Defendants’ motion solely on the

basis of Plaintiff’s failure to respond. Having reviewed the facts and the law, the Court

nevertheless grants Defendants’ motion on the merits. See Jaramillo v. Harrah’s Entm’t, Inc., No.

09cv2559, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14236, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2010).

In general, “the inherant sovereign powers of an Indian tribe do not extend to nonmembers

of the tribe.” Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981). The Supreme Court has

articulated two exceptions to this rule, however. First, a “tribe may regulate, through taxation,

licensing, or other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with

the tribe or its members, through commercial dealing, contracts, leases, or other arrangement.” Id.

 Second, a “tribe may also retain inherent power to exercise civil authority over the conduct of

non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that conduct threatens or has some direct

effect on the political integrity, the economic security, or the health or welfare of the tribe.” Id. at

566. In either of these circumstances, “civil jurisdiction over [disputes arising out of] such

activities presumptively lies in the tribal courts.” Strate v. A-1 Contractors, 520 U.S. 438, 453

(1997) (quoting Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 18 (1987)). 

Given the presumption of tribal-court jurisdiction, federal courts adhere to the practice of

staying or dismissing an action to “permit a tribal court to determine in the first instance whether it

Case 3:11-cv-02567-JLS-POR Document 9 Filed 02/16/12 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 - 11cv2567

has the power to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction” over the dispute whenever there is a

“colorable question” whether “the assertion of tribal court jurisdiction is plausible and appears to

have a valid or genuine basis.” Stock West Corp. v. Taylor, 964 F.2d 912, 919 (9th Cir. 1992).

Here, Defendants assert that Plaintiff Girmai, a patron of the casino, “is a non-Indian who

engaged in a consensual relationship with the Rincon Tribe on the reservation by voluntarily

entering the Casino.” (Mot. to Dismiss 11, ECF No. 4) The Court finds that it is plausible that a

non-Indian who enters a casino located on the Rincon Tribe’s land, and that is owned and operated

by the Rincon Tribe, enters into a commercial relationship with the Tribe. As such, the complaint

raises a “colorable question” regarding tribal jurisdiction, and the Court must give the tribal court

the first opportunity to determine its own jurisdiction. Stock West, 964 F.2d at 919. 

Although the Court may stay or dismiss the action where tribal exhaustion is required,

because Plaintiff failed to oppose Defendants’ motion, the Court finds dismissal appropriate. 

Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and the Clerk of Court is directed to

close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 16, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-02567-JLS-POR Document 9 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 3