Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00419/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00419-7/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORTH FORK RANCHERIA OF 

MONO INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 

Defendant. 

__________________________________/

1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB

ORDER DECLINING TO IMPOSE A 

STAY OF JUDGMENT

I. Introduction

Plaintiff North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California (“North Fork”) has 

obtained judgment on the pleadings against the State of California (“State” or “California”) 

based on the failure of the State to negotiate with the tribe for the purpose of entering into a 

Tribal-State compact governing the conduct of class III gaming activities as required by the 

Indian Gaming Rights Act (“IGRA”), see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A), after the California 

electorate voted down Proposition 48, the referendum that would have ratified the gaming 

compact between North Fork and California. Doc. 25. In response to issues highlighted by the

Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians (“Chukchansi”) in its motion to intervene, Doc. 31, 

the Court ordered additional briefing from the parties regarding whether a decision in one of the 

other actions regarding the proposed North Fork gaming site might impact this Court’s 

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 15
2

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

jurisdiction over this case, Doc. 36. North Fork and the State agree that this matter is justiciable 

regardless of the outcome of the other actions. Docs. 37, 38. They also agree that no stay should 

be imposed. Id. Chukchansi submitted briefing as amicus curiae, wherein it argues that this 

matter could be rendered non-justiciable by decisions in other proceedings. Doc. 39.

For the following reasons, this Court will decline to issue a stay.

II. Background

The Court set forth a detailed summary of the factual and statutory background relevant 

to North Fork’s Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”) claim in its Order dated November 13, 

2015. Doc. 25. Here, the Court will detail the scope of this proceeding and the other six 

proceedings relating to the North Fork gaming at the Madera parcel.

A. The Scope of This Action

North Fork initiated negotiation with the State pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(3)(A) 

which provides that “[a]ny Indian tribe having jurisdiction over lands upon which a class III 

gaming activity ... is to be conducted, shall request the State in which such lands are located to 

enter into negotiations for purposes of entering into a Tribal-State compact governing the 

conduct of gaming activities. Upon receiving such a request, the State shall negotiate with the 

Indian tribe in good faith to enter into such a compact.” On August 30, 2012, North Fork and 

Governor Brown agreed on the terms of a Tribal-State compact. The compact was then 

forwarded to the legislature for ratification. Ratification of the compact was proposed as 

Assembly Bill (“AB”) 277. On May 2, 2013, the California Assembly passed AB 277; on June 

27, 2013, the California Senate passed AB 277; and on July 3, 2013, the governor signed AB 

277. Then-Secretary of State, Deborah Bowen, forwarded the compact to the United States 

Secretary of the Interior for review and approval pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(8). On October 

22, 2013, the Secretary of the Interior published notice of the Tribal-State compact taking effect. 

78 FR 62649-01 (Oct. 22, 2013).

On October 1, 2013, opponents of the North Fork casino garnered sufficient signatures 

from California registered voters to place a veto referendum, known as California Proposition 

48, on the November 2014 ballot. On November 4, 2014, California voters overturned AB 277. 

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 15
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

Based on that referendum vote, the State of California refused to recognize the existence of a 

valid Tribal-State compact with North Fork. The State also refused to negotiate with North Fork 

regarding conducting gaming on the Madera parcel, indicating that such negotiation would be 

futile in light of the outcome of Proposition 48.

North Fork filed suit with this Court pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(A)(i), alleging

that the “State [failed] to enter into negotiations with the Indian tribe for the purpose of entering 

into a Tribal-State compact ... or [failed] to conduct such negotiations in good faith.” The parties 

filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings wherein each agreed that the Madera parcel 

was Indian land made eligible for gaming pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2719. The parties’ dispute 

surrounded only whether the State could refuse to negotiate regarding a specific parcel of Indian 

land. The Court determined that the State’s refusal to negotiate regarding the Madera parcel 

violated the State’s obligation under section 2710(d)(3)(A).1The parties were directed to 

conclude a compact within 60 days of the date of the Court’s order. See 25 U.S.C. § 

2710(d)(7)(B)(iii). The parties failed to do so. The Court then appointed a mediator pursuant to 

25 U.S.C. 2710(d)(7)(B)(iv). The parties were directed to submit “a proposed compact that 

represents their last best offer for a compact.” 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iv). The mediator was 

directed to “select from the two proposed compacts the one which best comports with the terms 

of [IGRA], ... any other applicable Federal law[,] and with the findings and order (Doc. 25) of 

th[is] court.” Id. The mediator selected the North Fork compact. At that point, the State was 

permitted sixty days within which to consent to the proposed compact. Id at § 2710(d)(7)(vi), 

(vii). The State did not consent within that sixty day period and the mediator notified the 

Secretary of the Interior. On July 29, 2016, the Secretary of the Interior issued Secretarial 

procedures governing the conduct of Class III gaming on North Fork’s Indian lands. See Doc. 42 

at 2; Id at § 2710(d)(7)(vii).

///

///

 

1 The Court accepted the parties’ representations that the Madera parcel is Indian land that is eligible for gaming. 

The Court also accepted the parties’ representation that no compact was in effect. 

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 15
4

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

B. Related Actions

North Fork has identified five other actions relating to the subject matter of the action 

before this court.

1. The District of Columbia Action

In December 2012, Stand Up for California!, a “community watchdog group that focuses 

on gambling issues affecting California citizens,” and several other plaintiffs filed suit against 

the United States Secretary of the Interior, challenging both the Secretary’s two-part afteracquired lands determination (“two-part determination”), see 25 U.S.C. § 2719, and decision to 

take the Madera parcel into trust for North Fork (“fee-to-trust determination”), see 25 U.S.C. § 

465, under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). Stand Up for California! v. U.S. Dept. of 

Interior, Case No. 1:12-cv-02039-BAH, Doc. 1 (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2012). At the end of the same 

month, Chukchansi filed a similar action that the district court consolidated with the Stand Up

for California case (collectively the “District of Columbia Action”). Picayune Rancheria of the 

Chukchansi Indians v. United States, Case No. 1:12-cv-2071-BAH, Doc. 1 (D.D.C. Dec. 31, 

2012).

Stand Up sought and was denied a preliminary injunction preventing acquisition of the 

Madera parcel on behalf of North Fork. Stand Up for California v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 919 

F.Supp.2d 51, 81 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 2013) (noting that none of the four of the factors—likelihood 

of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of the equities, and the public interest—weigh 

in favor of granting a Stand Up’s motion for preliminary injunction).

Thereafter, Stand Up twice amended its complaint to challenge (1) Governor Brown’s 

concurrence with the Secretary’s two-part determination, Stand Up for California! v. United 

States Department of the Interior, Case No. 1:12-cv-02039-BAH, Doc. 56 (D.D.C. June 27, 

2013), and (2) the validity of the compact in light of the Proposition 48, Id., Doc. 103 (D.D.C. 

Dec. 3, 2014). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Id., Docs. 106, 108, 111, 

112. As a result of the amendments and the parties’ cross-motions, the court in the District of 

Columbia Action had ordered briefing on whether the State of California is a required party 

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Id., Doc. 135 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2015). Briefing on that 

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 15
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

issue has concluded. The court in the District of Columbia action has yet to rule on the crossmotions for summary judgment or determine whether California is a required party. 

2. California Third District Court of Appeal Action

In November 2012, Chukchansi brought an action in the Sacramento County Superior 

Court, contending that the Governor’s concurrence in the Secretary’s two-part determination 

“constituted an ‘approval’ of a ‘project’ under [the California Environmental Quality Act 

(“CEQA”)] that ‘must be the subject of the CEQA environmental review process.’” Picayune 

Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. Brown, 229 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1421 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). 

The superior court granted Governor Brown’s demurrer, explaining that the Governor is not a 

“public agency” for purposes of CEQA and that his concurrence was not subject to CEQA. Id. 

The California Third District Court of Appeal affirmed. Id. at 1431. The California Supreme 

Court denied Chukchansi’s petition for review on January 14, 2015. That case is now closed.

3. California Fifth District Court of Appeal Action

In March of 2013, Stand Up filed suit in the Madera County Superior Court, contending 

that the Governor lacked the authority under California law to concur in the Secretary of the 

Interior’s two-part determination. Stand Up for California v State of California et al., 5th DCA 

Case No. F069302. The Madera County Superior Court held that the Governor’s authority to 

concur with the Secretary’s determination is implicit in the Governor’s authority to negotiate and 

conclude Tribal-State compacts on behalf of the state. Id. Stand Up appealed. The matter has 

been fully briefed and argued and is now under submission before the California Fifth District 

Court of Appeal.

In February 2014, North Fork filed a cross-complaint before the Madera County Superior 

Court, challenging the validity of Proposition 48 and arguing that the Tribal-State compact was 

in effect. The superior court dismissed the cross-complaint and North Fork appealed to the 

California Fifth District Court of Appeal. The two cases were consolidated. On June 3, 2016, 

based on the parties’ stipulation, the Fifth District Court of Appeal dismissed North Fork’s 

appeal. 

///

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 5 of 15
6

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. The Second Madera Superior Court Action

On March 18, 2016, Chukchansi filed suit in the Madera County Superior Court, 

challenging the Governor’s concurrence with the Secretary of the Interior’s two-part 

determination. See Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Case 

No. 1:16-cv-00950-AWI, Doc. 2 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2016). North Fork has been granted leave to 

intervene in that action and has filed a demurrer. Doc. 38 at 11. 

It has not been made clear to this Court how the issues presented in the Second Madera 

Superior Court Action differ from those presented by Stand Up in the California Fifth District 

Court of Appeal Action.

5. The Second California Eastern District Court Action

On July 1, 2016, Chukchansi filed an action with this Court, again challenging the 

validity of the Governor’s concurrence with the Secretary of the Interior’s two-part 

determination. Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Case No. 

1:16-cv-00950-AWI, Doc. 1 (E.D. Cal. July 1, 2016). An initial scheduling conference is set 

before the Magistrate Judge on October 20, 2016. Id. at Doc. 4 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2016).

III. Legal Standard

A district court’s power to control its docket includes broad discretion to grant a Landis 

stay—a stay in the proceedings pending resolution of other actions that bear on the case. 

Errington v. Time Warne Cable Inc., 2016 WL 2930696, *3-4 (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2016); 

Larroque v. First Advantage Lns Screening Solutions, Inc., 2016 WL 39787, *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 

4, 2016); see Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857 863 (9th Cir. 1979) (“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.”) In determining whether to grant such a stay, the Ninth Circuit 

requires a district court to consider “the competing interests which will be affected by the 

granting or refusal to grant a stay must be weighed. Among those competing interests are [(1)] 

the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [(2)] the hardship or inequity 

which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [(3)] the orderly course of justice 

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 6 of 15
7

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

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) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.3d 265, 268 (9th Cir 1962)) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). Moreover, “[a] stay should not be granted unless it appears likely that 

the other proceedings will be concluded within a reasonable time in relation to the urgency of the 

claims presented to the Court.” Id. (quoting Leyvla, 593 F.2d at 864) (internal quotation marks 

omitted).

The “proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 

U.S. 681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). If there is “even a fair possibility” of harm 

to the opposing party, the moving party “must make out a clear case of hardship or inequity in 

being required to go forward.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255; Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 

1112 (9th Cir. 2005).

IV. Discussion

A stay in the matter would be appropriate only if a determination in one or more of the 

other proceedings might impact the justiciability of this action.

2 As described in Section IV(A), 

the Court will assume that the statutory prerequisites to an IGRA good faith action are 

jurisdictional and consider the Landis factors. As set out in Section IV(B), the Landis factors do 

not support issuance of a stay of this matter. 

A. The Statutory Prerequisites to Filing an IGRA Good Faith Action

As North Fork and Chukchansi both recognize, three statutory prerequisites for bringing 

an IGRA action pursuant to section 2710(d)(3)(A) are at issue in the other actions involving the 

Madera parcel: (1) tribal exercise of jurisdiction over “Indian land” (the Secretary’s fee-to-trust 

determination); (2) eligibility for class III gaming (the Secretary’s two-part determination); and 

(3) non-existence of an enforceable Tribal-State compact. See Docs. 39 at 12, 41 at 5. 

North Fork and the State agree that, even insofar as the other pending litigations address 

the statutory prerequisites to filing suit in this IGRA action, the other actions do not impact the 

 

2

If no jurisdictional component were implicated, the Court’s factual determinations based on the parties’ 

stipulations to the satisfaction of statutory prerequisites would not now be subject to challenge. 

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 7 of 15
8

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

justiciability of this action. Chukchansi differs on this point. It argues each of the statutory 

prerequisites implicates the “actual injury” requirement of Article III. According to Chukchansi, 

if the Secretary’s fee-to-trust determination or two-part determination were void or the TribalState compact was in effect then North Fork lacked standing to initiate this action at the time of 

filing.3

As the Court noted in its order requiring supplemental briefing, “authority exists for the 

proposition that holding Indian lands is an Article III standing requirement for an Indian tribe 

alleging an IGRA claim.” Doc. 36 at 12 (citing, inter alia, Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of 

Pottawatomi Indians v. Engler, 304 F.3d 616, 618 (6th Cir. 2002); Mechoopda Indian Tribe of 

Chico Rancheria, Cal. v. Schwarzenegger, 2004 WL 1103021, *7 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2004)).

North Fork does not address this issue directly. Instead, it notes that standing is 

determined “at the outset of litigation.” Doc. 41 at 3 (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw 

Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180 (2000). North Fork is certainly correct. However, 

the Court’s concern was that one of the other actions might impact whether North Fork had 

standing at the outset of this action. For instance, the court in the District of Columbia Action 

could determine that the Secretary’s fee-to-trust or two-part determinations were void ab initio. If 

that takes place, North Fork would not lose standing after the fact; it would be as though North 

Fork never had standing in the first instance.4

 

3 Regardless of whether or not the statutory prerequisites are jurisdictional requirements, the parties and Chukchansi 

all agree that determinations in any of the pending actions that (1) the Madera parcel is not Indian lands (within the 

meaning of 25 U.S.C. § 2703(4)), or that (2) the Secretary’s two-part determination (pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2719) 

is void, would each operate as independent barriers to operation of a class III gaming activity on the Madera parcel.

4

In that respect, North Fork’s reliance on Jim 72 Properties, LLC v. Montgomery Cleaners, 151 F.Supp.3d 1092, 

1101 (C.D. Cal. 2016) is misguided. In Jim 72, the plaintiff in a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(“RCRA”) action was, among other things, in contract to purchase a home (and assume the attendant rights to 

litigate a RCRA action) damaged by the defendants’ chemical emissions. Id. at 1095, 1101. The defendant 

challenged the plaintiff’s standing, arguing that the plaintiff had standing only so long as it intended to purchase the 

house. Id at 1101. The Court explained that plaintiff was assigned the rights to litigate and those rights were 

immediately effective. Id. Even if, at some time in the future, the plaintiff did not purchase (or no longer intended to 

purchase) the house, the plaintiff had standing at the outset of the action and some other successor in interest would 

have standing. Id. at 1101-1102. 

The issue before the Court is distinct. Unlike Jim 72, if the Secretary inappropriately took the Madera 

parcel into trust, by the operation law, that land was never Indian land to begin with and there would be no successor 

in interest.

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 8 of 15
9

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

For the reasons set forth in the Court’s order requiring supplemental briefing, Doc. 36 at 

12-13, the statutory prerequisites are likely jurisdictional requirements. That said, the Court need 

not conclusively make that determination. Instead, the Court assumes that the statutory 

prerequisites to filing an IGRA action are standing requirements; the litigation of those 

requirements in other actions does not compel the Court to stay this matter until those 

requirements are finally adjudicated.

In this action, North Fork and the State agreed that all three prerequisites were met. Doc. 

1 at ¶ 4 (“The Madera Parcel is ‘Indian land’ ... and is eligible for gaming.”), ¶ 6 (“[T]he State 

has taken the position that the compact has not been ratified in accordance with California law 

and that the state therefore has not entered into a compact with the Tribe.”); Doc. 9 at ¶ 12 

(North Fork “exercises jurisdiction over the Madera Parcel, which constitutes ‘Indian lands’ 

under IGRA.”), ¶ 6 (It is “the State’s position that ... the statute ratifying the North Fork 

Compact never took effect.), ¶ 39 (“[T]he State admits that Governor Brown concurred in the 

Secretary’s [two-part] determination.) However, because the Court assumes that the statutory 

prerequisites are jurisdictional the parties’ agreement as to the statutory prerequisites is not 

treated as determinative. 

Even without the parties’ stipulations, no authority presently exists that would cast North 

Fork’s standing into doubt. The Madera County Superior Court considered two of the statutory 

prerequisites and found that (1) Proposition 48 was effective under state law to reverse the 

ratification of the Tribal-State compact and (2) the Governor had the authority to give his 

concurrence to the Secretary’s two part determination. The first determination is no longer under 

appeal. The second remains under appeal. In the District of Columbia Action, the Court denied a 

preliminary injunction preventing the Secretary of the Interior from taking land into trust on 

behalf of North Fork. The court found that Stand Up had failed to show a likelihood of success 

on the merits—the Secretary’s decision to take the land into trust was not in error. That action 

proceeds on the merits. As it stands now, there is sufficient information for the Court to 

conclude that North Fork had and has standing to litigate this action. See Doc. 36 at 9.

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 9 of 15
10

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 Jurisdictional Nature of the Statutory Prerequisites Does Not Restrict The Court’s 

Discretion to Impose or Decline to Impose a Stay

A roughly parallel situation to the case at bar was presented in the wake of the Supreme 

Court’s grant of certiorari in Robins v. Spokeo, Inc., 742 F.3d 409, (9th Cir. 2014) vacated sub 

nom by --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016). In Spokeo, the plaintiff alleged a website operator 

disseminated inaccurate information about him in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 

1970 (“FCRA”). Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1544. The plaintiff did not allege that he suffered any loss 

as a result of the dissemination of misinformation. Id. The Ninth Circuit opined that Congress 

could confer Article III standing to a plaintiff who had suffered no concrete harm by authorizing 

a private right of action based on violation of a federal statute. Strubel v. Capital One Bank 

(U.S.A.), N.A., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2016 WL 1271067, *3 (S.D. N.Y. Mar. 29, 2016) (citation 

omitted); see Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1544-1545 (“The Ninth Circuit noted, first, that Robins had 

alleged that ‘Spokeo violated his statutory rights, not just the statutory rights of other people,’ 

and, second, that ‘Robins's personal interests in the handling of his credit information are 

individualized rather than collective.’ ... Based on these two observations, the Ninth Circuit held 

that Robins had adequately alleged injury in fact, a requirement for standing under Article III of 

the Constitution.”) (internal citation omitted). A little over a year later the Supreme Court 

granted certiorari. Spokeo, 135 S.Ct. 1892 (Apr. 27, 2015). 

In the period between the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari and its eventual decision on 

May 16, 2016, numerous district courts were met with requests to stay actions pending the 

resolution by the Supreme Court of whether the plaintiffs in such cases had standing. E.g.

Strubel, 2016 WL 1271067 at *3; Zia v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 2016 WL 1230597 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 

22, 2016); Speer v. Whole Food Market Group, Inc., 2015 WL 2061665, *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 

2015).

In each of those actions, it was clear that jurisdiction might be eroded if the Supreme 

Court decided that a plaintiff in a FCRA action could not establish Article III standing by 

alleging a bare procedural violation of the FCRA, because such a violation might not result in 

actual harm. However, even in light of that recognition, some district courts denied a stay, noting

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 10 of 15
11

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

that the grant of certiorari did not change the law and to stay the action based on a presumption 

that the Supreme Court would come to one outcome would not serve judicial economy. Strubel, 

2016 WL 1271067 at *3; Robrinzine v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 741352 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 

2016); Speer, 2015 WL 2061665 at *1.

The district courts that did issue a stay recognized that the stay in those cases was within 

the discretion of the court and—generally because the actions were their early stages—would 

serve judicial economy. See, e.g., In re Michaels Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 947150, *4 (D. N.J. Mar. 

14, 2016); Provo v. Rady Children’s Hosp. San Diego, 2015 WL 6144029, *2 (S.D. Cal. July 29, 

2015). Regardless of the outcome, each of the district courts to have considered the issue 

recognized that the result of another case could destroy standing, considered the Landis factors 

(even if not in depth), and made clear that the issuance or denial of a stay was within that court’s 

discretion.

This Court faces largely the same situation; determinations in the other actions could 

impact standing of North Fork to litigate this action. Much in the same way that the Supreme 

Court’s grant of certiorari does not predict an outcome, the parties’ decisions to pursue relief in 

the other actions involving the Madera parcel do not tend to indicate an outcome. The Court 

faces a situation where standing is—at least for the time being—established but could be eroded 

by a decision in another court.5The result of pending actions may bear upon this case. This

Court must exercise its discretion to issue or decline to issue a stay. To do so the Court will 

consider the Landis factors. 

B. Application of the Landis Factors

As noted, the Court assumes that the statutory prerequisites to filing an IGRA good faith 

action are jurisdiction. That assumption in mind, the Court applies the Landis factors.

///

///

 

5 To be clear, this Court does not purport to consider the merits of those other actions. This Court simply finds that, 

at present, the Madera parcel is in trust for North Fork; the Governor did give his concurrence to the Secretary’s two 

part determination; and the State refused to recognize the validity of the 2012 Compact such that it cannot be 

characterized as having been in effect.

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 11 of 15
12

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 Possible Damage Which May Result from Granting a Stay

Chukchansi argues that it is unclear whether North Fork will face any damage at all if a 

stay is issued because, depending on the result of the other actions, North Fork may not be 

entitled to conduct gaming on the Madera parcel. It is certainly possible that no damage will 

result. However, that is not the focus of this inquiry. Instead, the Court looks to whether there is 

a “fair possibility” that a stay will “work damage” to North Fork. Landis, 299 U.S. at 255.

Chukchansi has filed at least two actions this year relating to Governor Brown’s 

concurrence with the Secretary’s two-part determination. See Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi 

Indians v. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Case No. 1:16-cv-00950-AWI, Docs. 1 & 2 (E.D. Cal. July 

1, 2016). Without speaking to the merits of either action, the Court notes that the relief sought in 

both of those actions is inconsistent with a finding that North Fork has standing to litigate this 

action. E.g., Id., Doc. 1 at ¶ 52 (“Because the Governor’s concurrence was never ratified by the 

California Legislature it is invalid under California law, and never went into legal effect.”) Those 

litigations are in the infancy stages. In fact, in the action before this court, the Secretary of the 

Interior has yet to even file an appearance. Id. The Court sees no reason, if a stay is to be granted, 

why it would not remain in place until those newly filed cases resolve. In the interim, North Fork 

would be precluded from operating any gaming activity.

6

Presuming North Fork’s success in 

defending the Tribal land status of the Madera parcel and its gaming eligibility, North Fork will 

have lost gaming revenue for duration of time that the stay was in place. There is more than a fair 

possibility of harm to North Fork if a stay is imposed. See Lockyer, 398 F.3d at 1112 (drawing a 

distinction between imposing a stay that would delay a plaintiff’s potential recovery of damages 

for past harm, which does not support denial of a stay, and imposing a stay that would cause a 

plaintiff future economic harm, which does support denial of a stay).

///

///

 

6 Chukchansi’s reliance on CMAX, Inc., 300 F.3d at 269, for the proposition that North Fork will suffer no injury is 

in error. In CMAX, the party opposing the stay sought only monetary damages for past injuries. The Ninth Circuit 

noted that delay of recovery of a fixed amount of monetary damages or discovery of adverse evidence do not 

constitute the kind of prejudice that justifies denial of a stay. Id. In this instance, staying the proceedings would 

preclude gaming activity on the Madera parcel going forward. That is a distinct and cognizable harm.

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 12 of 15
13

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 Hardship or Inequity Which May Be Suffered Due to the Action Moving Forward 

The Court considers whether to impose a stay sua sponte. As a result, there is no party 

“seeking the stay” that would suffer hardship or inequity. That said, Chukchansi is a proponent 

of the stay and the Court will consider the impact on Chukchansi if this Court declines to impose 

a stay and, more generally, the inequity that could result if the Court declined to issue a stay. See 

Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d at 1112 (Once a showing is made ‘that there is even a fair 

possibility that the stay ... with work damage to someone else,’ the party seeking the stay ‘must 

make out a clear case of hardship or inequity.”)

The principal potential inequity in this situation is that North Fork will be authorized to 

conduct gaming on land that could be determined to be (1) not Indian land or (2) otherwise not 

eligible for gaming. If either of those determinations is made in the other actions, any gaming 

being conducted will stop on the Madera parcel. Reversal of the Madera parcel’s designation as 

Indian land or the Secretary’s two-part determination would constitute independent barriers to 

gaming on the Madera parcel—as North Fork recognizes. If such a reversal takes place, at most, 

this Court’s refusal to issue a stay would have allowed gaming on the Madera parcel between the 

date that gaming takes place on the Madera parcel and the date of resolution of the action 

reversing either or both of those determinations. Moreover, the Courts in the other actions—each 

of which are in better positions to assess the validity of the claims before them than this court—

could (as the court did in the District of Columbia Action) craft restrictions on construction or 

gaming at the Madera parcel until the issue is finally resolved.

Chukchansi has presented only one argument to suggest that non-issuance of a stay will 

cause hardship to party or non-party to this action. It contends that without a stay the Department 

of the Interior may waste its time producing procedures that may be a nullity. The Department of 

the Interior has already issued such procedures. Chukchansi’s argument is now moot. The Court 

can see no other hardship that would result from non-issuance of a stay. 

In short, any possible inequity that would result from this Court’s refusal to issue a stay 

would be relatively short in time and could be mitigated by the courts presiding over the other 

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 13 of 15
14

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

actions to the extent that those courts see fit. The potential inequity that may result in allowing 

the action to move forward is not so clear or substantial as to require a stay.

3. The Orderly Course of Justice

In considering whether a stay would advance the orderly course of justice the court 

considers whether delaying the action pending resolution of the other actions would simplify any 

of the questions to be resolved in this action. CMAX, Inc., 300 F.2d at 268. Everything that 

IGRA permits the Court to determine has been determined. With the issuance of secretarial 

procedures on July 29, 2016, the process set out by IGRA has been completed. Issuance of a stay 

would not promote judicial efficiency and would place a potentially lengthy hold on the carefully 

constructed timeframe set by IGRA. 

4. Likelihood that the Other Proceedings Will Conclude Within a Reasonable Time

As noted, at least two of the actions that may bear upon this case are in very early stages. 

The Court will not attempt to estimate the amount of time that resolution of those matters will 

take at the trial court level, much less on appeal. Suffice it to say that finality is not in sight. 

Issuance of a stay in this action could extend by years proceedings that are now complete. In 

light of the statutorily set timeline for IGRA good faith actions, see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7), a 

potentially lengthy stay of this action is not reasonable. See Leyva, 593 F.3d at 864 (“A stay 

should not be granted unless it appears likely the other proceedings will be concluded within a 

reasonable time in relation to the urgency of the claims presented to the court.”); Pauma Band of 

Luiseno Mission Indians of Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. California, 813 F.3d 1155, 1160 (9th 

Cir. 2015) (IGRA was passed in part “to provide ‘a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by 

Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong 

tribal governments....’”) The likely delay also weighs against imposition of a stay.

5. Conclusion

Based on the above application of the Landis factors, the Court will exercise its discretion 

to decline to issue a stay.

///

///

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 14 of 15
15

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

V. Order

Based on the foregoing, the Court DECLINES to issue a stay.

This Order terminates this action in its entirety. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully 

directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00419-AWI-SAB Document 46 Filed 08/10/16 Page 15 of 15