Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01471/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-01471-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BIG LAGOON RANCHERIA, a Federally

Recognized Indian Tribe,

Plaintiff,

 v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant. /

No. 09-01471 CW

ORDER DENYING

DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STAY

OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, TO

CONTINUE

DISPOSITIVE

MOTION DATES

(Docket No. 50)

Pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Plaintiff

Big Lagoon Rancheria seeks an order finding that Defendant State of

California has failed to negotiate in good faith toward the

formation of a tribal-State compact for class III gaming. The

State moves to stay all proceedings in this action, except for

discovery, pending a determination by the Bureau of Indian Affairs

(BIA) as to whether Big Lagoon was under federal jurisdiction in

1934. The State contends that one of its affirmative defenses to

Big Lagoon’s action turns on the BIA’s decision. In the

alternative, the State asks the Court to continue the dispositive

motion filing and hearing date by at least six months. Big Lagoon

opposes the motion. Having considered the papers submitted by the

Case 4:09-cv-01471-CW Document 74 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 The BIA initiated its review based on an October, 2009

decision by its Pacific Regional Director to acquire 5.01 acres of

land in trust for Big Lagoon. Governor Schwarzenegger and the

California Coastal Commission appealed the decision to the Interior

Board of Indian Appeals, asserting that the Regional Director

failed to apply Carcieri. Thereafter, the matter was remanded to

the Regional Director to determine Big Lagoon’s status. 

2

parties, the Court DENIES the State’s Motion to Stay. 

BACKGROUND

Because the Court’s Order denying the State’s motion for

judgment on the pleadings provides details on the parties’ dispute,

they will not be repeated in full here. In sum, Big Lagoon and the

State have engaged in negotiations over forming a tribal-State

compact regarding gaming on Big Lagoon’s lands. The parties have

not yet executed a compact. In April, 2009, Big Lagoon filed the

present lawsuit, claiming that the State has not negotiated in good

faith and seeking an order compelling the State to do so. 

The State contends that the United States Supreme Court’s

February, 2009 decision in Carcieri v. Salazar, 129 S. Ct. 1058

(2009), is relevant to this case. In Carcieri, the Court concluded

that the Indian Relocation Act (IRA) authorizes the Secretary of

the Interior to acquire land in trust for a tribe only if the tribe

was “under the federal jurisdiction of the United States when the

IRA was enacted in 1934.” 129 S. Ct. at 1068. Currently, the BIA

is conducting a review, pursuant to Carcieri, to determine whether

Big Lagoon was such a tribe.1

The State seeks a stay pending this determination, asserting

that the BIA’s decision is central to its affirmative defense that:

Big Lagoon is not entitled to injunctive relief

Case 4:09-cv-01471-CW Document 74 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

compelling Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to negotiate a

Compact authorizing class III gaming on land taken in

trust for the Rancheria subsequent to October 17, 1988,

because Big Lagoon is not eligible to be a beneficiary of

a trust conveyance pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 465 and, thus,

was never entitled to a beneficial interest in that land.

Answer at 5. Because Big Lagoon may not have been a proper

beneficiary, the State maintains that it was not in the public

interest to negotiate with Big Lagoon and, therefore, it did not

lack good faith. A court may consider the public interest when

determining whether a state negotiated in good faith. See 25

U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)(I). The State further argues that,

because it acted in good faith, it should not be compelled to

conclude a tribal-State compact with Big Lagoon. 

In December, 2009, the State served subpoenas duces tecum on

the BIA, requesting documents that would support the abovementioned affirmative defense. Because the BIA had not yet

answered the subpoenas by the fact discovery cut-off date set by

the Court’s Case Management Order, the State moved to extend the

fact discovery deadline. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granted

the State’s motion and continued the deadline to May 31, 2010. 

(Docket No. 60.) 

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, this Court continued the

hearing on case-dispositive motions to August 12, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. 

Big Lagoon’s dispositive motion is currently due June 17, 2010. 

The State’s opposition and cross-motion, if any, is due July 1,

2010. 

DISCUSSION

It is well-established that “the power to stay proceedings is

Case 4:09-cv-01471-CW Document 74 Filed 04/16/10 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the

disposition of the cases on its docket with economy of time, effort

for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North Am.

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849

F.2d 1422, 1426-27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Courts have inherent power to

manage their dockets and stay proceedings.”) As the Ninth Circuit

instructs, 

A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient

for its own docket and the fairest course for the

parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending

resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon

the case. This rule applies whether the separate

proceedings are judicial, administrative, or arbitral in

character, and does not require that the issues in such

proceedings are necessarily controlling of the action

before the court. 

Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th

Cir. 1979).

In determining whether to grant a stay, courts generally

consider the following competing interests: “the possible damage

which may result from the granting of a stay, the hardship or

inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward,

and the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the

simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law

which could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer v. Mirant

Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

The State’s primary argument is that this action must be

stayed because its outcome could be impacted by the BIA’s decision

as to whether Big Lagoon was a tribe under federal jurisdiction in

1934. As the State notes, the public interest is one of many

factors that IGRA allows a court to consider in determining whether

Case 4:09-cv-01471-CW Document 74 Filed 04/16/10 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

a state has negotiated in good faith. See 25 U.S.C.

§ 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)(I). Thus, the BIA’s decision, which arguably

implicates the public interest, does not control the outcome of

this case. A stay pending the BIA’s decision, therefore, is not

required. 

With regard to the State’s alternative motion to continue the

dispositive motion filing and hearing dates by six months, the

Court does not find good cause to do so. The State asserts that

the BIA’s failure to respond to the subpoenas constitutes good

cause. The State further maintains that “Carcieri is a new

decision” and it is asserting a “a new affirmative defense” for

which it did not conduct prior discovery. Pl.’s Mem. of P & A in

Support of Mot. at 8. However, Carcieri was decided February 24,

2009, more than a month before Big Lagoon filed its action. The

State did not serve the subpoenas on the BIA until December, 2009. 

Based on these facts, it does not appear that the State was

reasonably diligent in seeking discovery from the BIA; this

undermines the State’s assertion that good cause supports its

request. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604,

609-10 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, the BIA may respond to the

subpoenas in advance of July 1, the deadline for the State’s

opposition and cross-motion. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the State’s Motion

to Stay Proceedings and its alternative request to continue the

dispositive motion filing and hearing dates for at least six

months. (Docket No. 50.) As noted above, Big Lagoon’s dispositive

Case 4:09-cv-01471-CW Document 74 Filed 04/16/10 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 6

motion is currently due June 17, 2010; the State’s opposition and

any cross-motion, contained in a single brief, are due July 1,

2010; Big Lagoon’s reply and cross-opposition, contained in a

single brief, are due July 15, 2010; and the State’s reply on its

cross-motion is due July 22, 2010. A hearing on the dispositive

motions and a case management conference are scheduled for August

12, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2010 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-01471-CW Document 74 Filed 04/16/10 Page 6 of 6