Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01147/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01147-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On January 4, 2019, the Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Blue Lake 

Rancheria, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, and Robinson Rancheria

(“2019 Tribes”) filed suit against the State of California and Governor Edmund Brown, Jr. 

(“California”), E.D. Cal. Case No. 1:19-cv-0024. The 2019 Tribes assert that California violated 

the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to engage in good faith negotiations with the 

2019 Tribes concerning renewal/extensions of class III gaming compacts. 

The 2019 Tribes were part of a larger group of federally recognized California Indian 

Tribes (whose gaming compacts expire on December 31, 2020 with automatic extension to June 

30, 2022 unless a further compact is agreed to) called the Compact Tribes Steering Committee 

(“CTSC”) formed in 2014. The CTSC sought to negotiate with California as a group to 

renew/extend their gaming compacts. The negotiations did not result in a successful agreement. 

Certain Tribes withdrew from the negotiations in January 2019 and filed suit. 

The CTSC continued to negotiate with California until July 2020. Other members of the 

CAHUILLA BAND OF INDIANS, a 

federally recognized Indian Tribe,

Plaintiff

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and GAVIN 

NEWSOM IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:19-CV-0024 AWI SKO

CASE NO. 1:20-CV-1147 DAD SKO

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-1585 KJM AC

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-1630 MCE AC

ORDER RELATING AND 

REASSIGNING CASES

Case 1:20-cv-01147-KES-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 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

2

CTSC have now also filed suit against California. The Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians filed E.D. 

Cal. Case No. 1:20-cv-1147. The Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian 

Community filed E.D. Cal. 2:20-cv-1585. The Cahuilla Band of Indians filed E.D. Cal. Case No. 

2:20-cv-1630. In the three new suits, the plaintiffs (“2020 Tribes”) also allege that California 

violated the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by failing to engage in good faith negotiations. 

There is significant overlap in the subject matter of all the suits as the 2019 and 2020 Tribes were 

all members of the CTSC which negotiated as a group with California for several years. The 2020 

Tribes have filed notices of related cases, seeking relation of all four cases. 

Local Rules state that “If the Judge to whom the action with the lower or lowest number 

has been assigned determines that assignment of the actions to a single Judge is likely to effect a 

savings of judicial effort or other economies, that Judge is authorized to enter an order reassigning 

all higher numbered related actions to himself or herself.” Local Rule 123(c). To guide this 

determination, the Local Rules also provide that:

An action is related to another action within the meaning of this Rule when

(1) both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same or a similar 

claim;

(2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event;

(3) both actions involve similar questions of fact and the same question of law and 

their assignment to the same Judge or Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a 

substantial savings of judicial effort, either because the same result should follow in 

both actions or otherwise; or

(4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of labor if the 

actions were heard by different Judges or Magistrate Judges.

Local Rule 123(a). Here, the four cases appear to, in part, involve the same transaction or event 

and involve similar questions of fact and law; assignment to the same judge is likely to effect a 

substantial savings of judicial effort. Local Rule 123(a)(2), (3), and (4). Because the undersigned 

is assigned the lowest numbered related case, the above-entitled cases will be reassigned to the 

dockets of Senior District Judge Anthony Ishii and referred to Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 1:20-cv-01147-KES-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2020 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01147-KES-SKO Document 13 Filed 10/14/20 Page 3 of 3