Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01147/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01147-12/pdf.json

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

---

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

Stip. Granting Summ. J. in Pl.’s Favor and Order Requiring Parties to Proceed to Remedial Process

in 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii) (1:20-cv-01147-AWI-SKO)

ROB BONTA

Attorney General of California

SARA J. DRAKE

Senior Assistant Attorney General

T. MICHELLE LAIRD

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

JEREMY STEVENS, State Bar No. 313883

TIMOTHY M. MUSCAT, State Bar No. 148944

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, CA 94244-2550

Telephone: (916) 210-7779

Fax: (916) 323-2319

E-mail: Timothy.Muscat@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

GEORGE FORMAN, State Bar No. 47822

FORMAN SHAPIRO & ROSENFELD LLP

5055 Lucas Valley Road

Nicasio, CA 94946

Telephone: (415) 491-2310

Email: george@gformanlaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOBOBA BAND OF LUISEÑO INDIANS, 

a federally recognized Indian Tribe,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and GAVIN 

NEWSOM IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY 

AS GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

1:20-cv-01147-AWI-SKO

STIPULATION FOR GRANTING 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN 

PLAINTIFF’S FAVOR AND ORDER 

REQUIRING PARTIES TO PROCEED 

TO THE REMEDIAL PROCESS IN 25 

U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii)

Case 1:20-cv-01147-KES-SKO Document 77 Filed 01/27/23 Page 1 of 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

2

Stip. Granting Summ. J. in Pl.’s Favor and Order Requiring Parties to Proceed to Remedial Process

in 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii) (1:20-cv-01147-AWI-SKO)

On July 28, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued its published decision in Chicken Ranch 

Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California (Chicken Ranch), 42 F.4th 1024 (9th Cir 2022). That 

case involved whether the State of California (State) had failed to negotiate in good faith with 

five California tribes seeking new tribal-state compacts required by the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710-2712, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1166-1167, in order for the tribes 

to conduct what IGRA defines as “class III gaming.” The Court held that “IGRA strictly limits 

the topics that states may include in tribal-state Class III compacts to those directly related to the 

operation of gaming activities.” Chicken Ranch, 42 F.4th at 1029.

The Chicken Ranch court ruled that the State failed to engage in good-faith negotiations 

with five plaintiff tribes under IGRA by insisting on provisions not directly related to the 

operation of class III gaming activities. The specific provisions addressed by the Ninth Circuit 

concerned tribal recognition of spousal and child support orders for all gaming facility 

employees, environmental review and mitigation for a broadly defined set of projects, and broad 

tort claims coverage. Chicken Ranch, 42 F.4th at 1037-39. The court held that under 25 U.S.C.

§ 2710(d)(3)(C)(vii), “these family, environmental, and tort law provisions are not ‘directly 

related to the operation of gaming activities.’” Id. at 1038.

Similar to the plaintiff tribes in Chicken Ranch, plaintiff Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, 

a federally recognized Indian tribe (Soboba) is a former member of the Compact Tribes Steering 

Committee (CTSC). On August 19, 2014, the CTSC, a coalition of twenty-eight federally 

recognized California Indian tribes, wrote to inform the State of CTSC’s formation and its desire 

to begin the negotiation process for a new class III gaming compact. Soboba was a member of 

CTSC in 2014, and remained a member until July 6, 2020. As such, Soboba shares the same 

record of negotiations (RON) with the plaintiff tribes in Chicken Ranch from August 19, 2004, 

through July 6, 2020.

Soboba withdrew from negotiations with the State and filed its Complaint for Declaratory 

and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) on August 15, 2020. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint’s first claim for 

relief alleged that the State failed in its duty to negotiate in good faith under IGRA. (Id. at 8-20.) 

The Complaint’s second claim for relief alleged that the State materially breached section

Case 1:20-cv-01147-KES-SKO Document 77 Filed 01/27/23 Page 2 of 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

3

Stip. Granting Summ. J. in Pl.’s Favor and Order Requiring Parties to Proceed to Remedial Process

in 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii) (1:20-cv-01147-AWI-SKO)

4.3.2.1(a) of Soboba’s existing 1999 Compact. (Id. at 20-21.) Regarding the two claims in 

Soboba’s Complaint, on May 26, 2021, Soboba and the State and Governor Gavin Newsom (State 

Defendants) filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 31 & 32.) In these motions, the 

parties disputed whether the State failed in its duty under IGRA to negotiate in good faith. These 

motions included disputes over whether the State’s proposed provisions regarding tort liability

and remedies (Complaint, Count Nine), tribal recognition of employee spousal and child support 

orders (Complaint, Count Eleven), and environmental review and mitigation (Complaint, Count 

Thirteen), exceeded the permissible scope of negotiations under IGRA, 25 U.S.C.

§ 2710(d)(3)(C)(i)-(vii), and thus constituted a failure by the State to negotiate in good faith. In 

addition, these motions included disputes over other provisions proposed by the State. Some of 

those provisions were at issue in Chicken Ranch but were not ruled upon by the Ninth Circuit in 

Chicken Ranch, while other provisions were not specifically at issue in Chicken Ranch.

In support of their cross-motions for summary judgment, on May 26, 2021 the parties 

each filed an identical Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (JSUF). (Docs. 31-5 & 32-4.) The 

stipulated facts in the JSUF included facts from the record of negotiations (RON) based upon 

CTSC compact negotiations over tort claims coverage (JSUF, Nos. 44, 46-47, 49-51, 108, 146-

149, 168, 175, & 186), employee spousal and child support orders (JSUF, Nos. 49-50, 52, 101, 

158-161, 170 & 174), environmental review and mitigation (JSUF, Nos. 45, 96, 98, 108, 129-133, 

& 164), and the other provisions at issue in the cross-motions for summary judgment (JSUF, Nos. 

16, 21-24, 26, 34, 36, 39, 41-42, 45-47, 49-52, 56, 58, 60, 65-66, 71-74, 76, 78, 101).

While Soboba and the State Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment remain 

pending before the Court, the Ninth Circuit’s Chicken Ranch decision resolved the central legal 

issues under IGRA in these motions – i.e., generally the extent to which 25 U.S.C. 

§ 2710(d)(3)(C)(i)-(vii) limits the permissible scope of compact negotiations and whether the

State’s insistence on compact provisions concerning tort claims coverage, employee spousal and 

child support orders, and environmental review and mitigation constituted a failure to negotiate in 

good faith.

Case 1:20-cv-01147-KES-SKO Document 77 Filed 01/27/23 Page 3 of 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

Stip. Granting Summ. J. in Pl.’s Favor and Order Requiring Parties to Proceed to Remedial Process

in 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii) (1:20-cv-01147-AWI-SKO)

Based on Chicken Ranch’s key holdings, the largely identical RONs in both this case and 

Chicken Ranch, and the parties’ previously filed JSUFs, the parties now request the Court, 

pursuant to this stipulation, to grant summary judgment in Soboba’s favor on its first claim for 

relief that the State failed to negotiate in good faith as required by IGRA because it sought “to 

negotiate for compact provisions that fall well outside of IGRA’s permissible topics of 

negotiation,” Chicken Ranch, 42 F.4th at 1040, namely, tribal recognition of state court spousal 

and child support orders, environmental review and mitigation for a broadly defined set of 

“projects,” and broad tort claims coverage based upon California law, and order the parties to 

proceed pursuant to the remedial process set forth in IGRA, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii).

Further, the parties stipulate to the dismissal of Soboba’s second claim for relief without 

prejudice.

///

///

///

Case 1:20-cv-01147-KES-SKO Document 77 Filed 01/27/23 Page 4 of 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

5

Stip. Granting Summ. J. in Pl.’s Favor and Order Requiring Parties to Proceed to Remedial Process

in 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii) (1:20-cv-01147-AWI-SKO)

Dated: November 17, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

ROB BONTA

Attorney General of California

SARA J. DRAKE

Senior Assistant Attorney General

T. MICHELLE LAIRD

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

JEREMY STEVENS

Deputy Attorney General

 /s/ Timothy M. Muscat

TIMOTHY M. MUSCAT

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants

Dated: November 17, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

FORMAN SHAPIRO & ROSENFELD LLP

 /s/ George Forman (as authorized on

 11/17/22)

George Forman

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:20-cv-01147-KES-SKO Document 77 Filed 01/27/23 Page 5 of 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

6

Stip. Granting Summ. J. in Pl.’s Favor and Order Requiring Parties to Proceed to Remedial Process

in 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii) (1:20-cv-01147-AWI-SKO)

ORDER

Based upon the above stipulation by the parties, summary judgment is granted in 

Soboba’s favor on the first claim for relief in its Complaint, consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s 

decision in Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California (Chicken Ranch), 42 F.4th 

1024 (9th Cir. 2022), and the undisputed facts agreed upon by the parties. 

Pursuant to the stipulation by the parties, it is further ordered that the second claim for 

relief in Soboba’s Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.

Accordingly, the parties ARE HEREBY ORDERED to proceed pursuant to the remedial 

process set forth in IGRA, 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 26, 2023 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01147-KES-SKO Document 77 Filed 01/27/23 Page 6 of 6