Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01585/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01585-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 25:640 Indian Tribal Rights

---

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) (2:20-CV-01585-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

CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN 

INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN 

COMMUNITY, a federally recognized 

Indian Tribe,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and GAVIN 

NEWSOM IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY 

AS GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendants.

2:20-cv-01585-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 2:20-cv-01585-KES-SKO Document 79 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1 of 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

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) (2:20-CV-01585-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 Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun 

Indians of the Colusa Indian Community, a federally recognized Indian tribe (Colusa), 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 new class III gaming 

compacts. Colusa was a member of CTSC in 2014, and remained a member until July 6, 2020. 

As such, Colusa shares the same record of negotiations (RON) with the plaintiff tribes in Chicken 

Ranch from August 19, 2014, through July 6, 2020.

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

and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) on August 7, 2020. (Doc. 1.) The Complaint’s claim for relief 

alleged that the State failed in its duty to negotiate in good faith under IGRA. (Id. at ¶¶ 27-69.) 

Regarding this claim in Colusa’s Complaint, on May 26, 2021, Colusa and the State and 

Case 2:20-cv-01585-KES-SKO Document 79 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 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

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) (2:20-CV-01585-AWI-SKO)

Governor Gavin Newsom (State Defendants) filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (Docs. 

34 & 35.) 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. 34-5 & 35-4.) The 

stipulated facts in the JSUF included facts from the RON based upon CTSC compact negotiations 

over tort claims coverage (JSUF, Nos. 16, 44, 49, 99, 146, 168, 175 & 199), employee spousal 

and child support orders (JSUF, Nos. 49-52, 101, 158-59, 170 & 174), environmental review and 

mitigation (JSUF, Nos. 16, 21, 23, 45, 98, 108, 129, 133 & 164), and the other provisions at issue 

in the cross-motions for summary judgment (e.g., JSUF, Nos. 16, 21, 23-24, 26, 29, 36, 39-42, 

45-47, 49-52, 58, 76, 78, 85 & 101).

While Colusa 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.

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

Chicken Ranch, and the parties’ JSUFs, the parties now request the Court, pursuant to this 

Case 2:20-cv-01585-KES-SKO Document 79 Filed 01/26/23 Page 3 of 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

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) (2:20-CV-01585-AWI-SKO)

stipulation, grant summary judgment in Colusa’s favor on its 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). 

Dated: December 6, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Rob Bonta

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: December 6, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

FORMAN SHAPIRO & ROSENFELD LLP

/s/ George Forman

George Forman

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 2:20-cv-01585-KES-SKO Document 79 Filed 01/26/23 Page 4 of 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

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) (2:20-CV-01585-AWI-SKO)

ORDER

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

Colusa’s favor on the 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.

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 2:20-cv-01585-KES-SKO Document 79 Filed 01/26/23 Page 5 of 5