Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01920/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01920-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMUL ACTION COMMITTEE, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JONODEV CHAUDHURI, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-01920 KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

In this action the Jamul Action Committee, several of its members, and the Jamul 

Community Church (together, the JAC), seek to prevent construction of a casino outside Jamul, 

California. See Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1–6, ECF No. 51. The defendants are employees, 

officials, or appointees of the National Indian Gaming Commission, the Department of Interior, 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (the federal defendants), individual members of the Jamul Indian 

Village (the Tribe), and corporations participating in the construction of the casino (the tribally 

affiliated defendants). The Tribe itself is not a party. 

In previous orders, the court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss, see Order 

Aug. 5, 2014, ECF No. 50, and denied the JAC’s motion for a preliminary injunction, see Order 

May 15, 2015, ECF No. 93. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal of the court’s order 

denying their motion for a preliminary injunction, which is pending. See Notice of Appeal, ECF 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 140 Filed 03/03/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

No. 94. The court has concluded it maintains subject matter jurisdiction over this case during the 

pending appeal. See Status Order 2–4, ECF No. 115. 

The case thus proceeds here on the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, in which 

they assert six claims: (1) for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act; (2) for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Indian Reorganization Act of 

1934; (3) for declaratory and injunctive relief under equal constitutional conceptions of protection 

and federalism; (4) for injunctive relief for nuisance; (5) for declaratory relief under the National 

Environmental Policy Act; (6) and for declaratory and injunctive relief concerning violation of a 

federally approved compact between the Tribe and the State of California. See generally Second 

Am. Compl.1 

The federal and tribally affiliated defendants both moved to dismiss the second 

amended complaint on December 21, 2015. See Tribe Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, ECF Nos. 123, 125; 

Fed. Defs.’ Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 127. Their motions primarily challenge this court’s subject 

matter jurisdiction without reference to the pending appeal; they raise questions of the plaintiff’s 

standing, failure to join the Tribe (which they argue is a necessary party), and the Tribe’s and the 

United States’ sovereign immunity. Their motions draw heavily on this court’s previous orders, 

which dismissed claims and denied a preliminary injunction on similar jurisdictional questions. 

See Order Aug. 5, 2014, at 18–20 (sovereign immunity); id. at 23–27 (failure to join a necessary 

party); Order May 15, 2015, at 13–14 (standing). 

Before opposition briefs on the pending motions to dismiss were due, the JAC 

moved for partial summary judgment. ECF No. 133. In that motion, the JAC requests “a 

determination that none of the four properties on which a proposed Indian casino is being 

constructed . . . is a ‘reservation’ as that term is defined and used in the Indian Gaming 

 1

 On October 1, 2015, this case was related to Rosales v. Dutschke, No. 15-1145 (E.D. 

Cal. filed May 27, 2015). See Related Case Order, ECF No. 114. In the related case, the 

plaintiffs seek to halt construction of the same casino, which they allege has led to the desecration 

and disinterment of their families’ remains and funerary objects. See generally Compl., No. 15-

1145, ECF No. 1. Many of the defendants in the Jamul Action Committee case are also 

defendants in Rosales. 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 140 Filed 03/03/16 Page 2 of 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 

3

Regulatory Act (IGRA).” Mem. P. &A. 1, ECF No. 133-1 (citing 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701–2721). In 

response, the tribally affiliated and federal defendants moved ex parte to stay any briefing or 

hearing on the motion for summary judgment until their jurisdictional motions are resolved. See 

Ex Parte App. Stay, ECF No. 135; Joinder; ECF No. 136. 

The JAC responds that its own motion “raises important jurisdictional issues 

which directly affect the authority of the [NIGC] to approve the gaming management contract.” 

Resp. Ex Parte App. at 2, ECF No. 138. This characterization is not quite correct; the JAC’s 

motion addresses not this court’s jurisdiction, but the defendants’. Specifically, the motion raises 

the substantive question of the ownership of the land on which the future casino sits. See, e.g., 

Mem. P. & A. at 1 (“Plaintiffs request a determination that none of the four properties on which a 

proposed Indian casino is being constructed in Jamul, California, is a ‘reservation’ as that term is 

defined and used in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).”). 

The ex parte request to stay briefing and adjudication of the plaintiffs’ motion for 

summary judgment is GRANTED. “[A] federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a 

case without first determining that it has jurisdiction . . . .” Sinochem Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia 

Int’l Shipping Corp. 549 U.S. 422, 430–31 (2007). Here, where the court has in previous orders 

questioned its subject matter jurisdiction, moving forward with briefing and argument of the 

JAC’s merits-based motion for summary judgment may prove an exercise in futility. It is better 

first to ensure the court has jurisdiction over the substance of the case. See, e.g., Landis v. N. Am. 

Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (observing the district court has power to “control the disposition 

of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for 

litigants”); Harris v. Parisian, No. 06-143, 2007 WL 1140657, at *2 (D. Mont. Apr. 16, 2007) 

(entering a stay pending resolution of jurisdictional motions). 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 140 Filed 03/03/16 Page 3 of 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 

4

In light of the court’s discretion to manage this litigation, briefing on the plaintiffs’ 

pending motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 133, is STAYED. This order resolves ECF 

No. 135. A separate order on the defendants’ ex parte request to continue, ECF No. 137, will 

issue shortly. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 2, 2016. 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 140 Filed 03/03/16 Page 4 of 4