N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
B AKER R ANC HES, INC
. ; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s,
v. DEB HAALAND, in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity a s Se c re ta ry of the Unite d State s De pa rtm e nt of the Inte rior; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts. No. 22-15765

D.C . No. 3:21-c v-00150-GM

N-C SD
M EM O R ANDUM *

B AKER R ANC HES, INC
. ; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts,
v. DEB HAALAND, in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity a s Se c re ta ry of the Unite d State s De pa rtm e nt of the Inte rior; e t a l., De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 22-15846 D.C . No. 3:21-c v-00150-GM

N-C SD

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da 

# F IL ED OCT 13 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Gloria M . Nava rro, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d

Oc tobe r 4, 2023 Unive rsity

of Ne va da La s Ve ga s B e fore : R

AW LINSON a

n d OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s, a nd FITZWATER , * * Distric t Judge
. The gove rnm e n t a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r granting them otion of B ake r R anc he s, Inc . (B ake r R anc he s) a nd the othe r Pla intiffs to re m and to Ne va da sta te c o urt the ir la

wsuit a lle ging tha

t the gove rnm e nt viola

te d its wa te r rights unde r the B ak e r-Le hm an De c re e . In its c ross-a ppe a l , B ake r R anc he s a sse rts tha t the distric t c o urt a

buse d its disc re tion in de ny ing its re que s t for attorne y ’ s fe e s a nd
c osts. W e va c a te the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to re m an d the a c t ion to sta te c ourt, but a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s de nia l of a ttorne y ’ s fe e s a

nd c osts. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1447(d) 1 , a nd we re vie w de nov o the distric t c o urt’ s re m and of B a ke r R anc he s’ a c tion to sta te c ourt. Se e C

ity & C nty . of Honolulu v . Sunoc o LP , 39 F.4th 1101, 1106 (9th C ir. 2022). W e re v ie w the distric t c o urt’ s de n ia l of a ttorne y ’ s fe e s and c osts unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1447(c ) for an

* * The Honora

ble Sidne y

A. Fitz wa te r, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Te xa s , sitting by de signa tion. 1 B ake r R a

n c he s ’ c onte ntion tha

t we la c k jurisdic tion to re vie w the distric t c ourt’ s orde r re m anding its a c tion to sta t e c ourt is fore c l ose d by our pre c e de nt. Se e Frie de nbe rg v . LaneC

nty . , 68 F.4th 1113, 1120-21 (9th C ir. 2023).

2a

buse o f disc re tion. Se e Lussie r v . Dollar Tre e Store s, Inc
. , 518 F.3d 1062, 1065 (9th C ir. 2008). The distric t c ourt prope rly re c ogniz e d tha

t the doc trine of prior e xc l usive jurisdic tion a

pplie s “ whe n a

c ourt of c ompe te nt jurisdic tion ha s obta ine d posse s sion, c ustody , or c ontrol of pa rtic ula r prope rty . ” Unite d

State s v . Pe troSaudi Oil Se rv s. (Ve ne zue la) Ltd. , 70 F.4th 1199, 1208 (9th C ir. 2023) (c ita t ion om itte d) (e m pha sis a dde d ); se ealso S

tate Eng’r of N

e v . v . S. Fork

Band of the

Te -Moak Tribe of the

W . Shoshone

Indians of N

e v . , 339 F.3d 804, 809-10 (9th C ir. 2003). Howe ve r, the distric t c ourt did not addre s s whe the r the gove rnm e nt ha d sove re ign im m unity from suit, whic h would deprive the sta te c ourt of jurisdic tion ove r B ake r R anc he s’ a c tion. If “ the re c ord c onta ins no e vide nc e tha t [the gove rnm e nt] wa ive d its sove re ign im

m unity ,” the n “ the Ne v a da

sta te c ourt la c ke d

jurisdic tion ove r the
a c tion.” C

ox v . U.S. De

p’t of Agric
. , 800 F.3d 1031, 1032 (9th C ir. 2015) (pe r c uriam ) (c ita

tion omitte d). “ Ac c ordingly , unde r the de riva tive jurisdic tion doc trine , the distric t

c ourt [would] a lso la c k[ ] jurisdic tion.” Id. (c ita tion om itte d).

“ The M c C a

rra n Am e ndm e nt, 43 U.S.C . § 666, wa ive s the Unite d State s’
sove re ign im

m unity for the lim ite d purpose of a l lowing theGove rnm e nt to be joine d a s a

de fe nda n t in a sta te a djudic a tion or a dm inistra tion of wa

te r rights. . . .” In re K lamath Irrigation Dist. , 69 F.4th 934, 942 (9th C i r. 2023) (c ita tion,
3a lte ra tion, a

nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d ). Howe ve r, it doe s not “ e xpa nd a sta te c o urt’ s subje c t m a tte r jurisdic tion or e m powe r a sta te to a djudic ate rights be y ond its jurisdiction.” Id. B e c a use the distric t c ourt de c ision doe s not a ddre s s whe the r the gove rnm e nt
wa ive d its sove re ign im

m unity unde r the M c C arra n Am e n dm e nt re lat ive to the spe c ific c la im s a lle ge d by B ak e r R anc he s, we va c a te and re m and for the distric t
c ourt to c onduc t this a

na ly sis in the

first insta nc e . In a ddition to a

ny othe r re le va

nt issue s, the distric t c ourt should de c ide : (1) whe the r B ake r R anc he s’ c l a im s
a c tua lly involve the a d

m inistra t ion of wa

te r rights a s c onte m

p late d by the M c C arra n Am e ndm e n t; (2) whe the r the gove rnm e nt’ s sove re ign im m unity is im pa c te d by its a lle ge d re se rve d wate r rights or its de c re e d wate r rights unde r the B ake r-Le hm a

n De c re e tha

t a re not a t issue in B ake r R anc he s’ a c tion; a nd (3) whe the r the proc e e dings re sulting in the B ake r-Le hm a

n De c re e c onstitute d a
c om ple t e a d judic a tion for purpose s of the M c C arra n Am e ndm e n t of the wate r rights a t issue in B ake r R anc he s’ a c tion. Due to the pla

u sible jurisdic t iona l c ha lle nge s ra ise d by the gove rnm e n t, the distric t c o urt did not a

buse its disc re tion in de ny ing B ake r R anc he s’ re que st for
a ttorne y ’ s fe e s a

nd c o sts unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1447(c ) be c a use the gove rnm e nt did not “ la c k[ ] an obje c tive ly re a sona ble ba sis for se e king re m ova l.” C h an
4He althc a re Grp., PS v
. Libe rty Mut. Fire

Ins. C o. , 844 F.3d 1133, 1141 (9th C ir. 2017) (c ita

tion omitte d). The pa ne l re ta ins jurisdic tion ove r any future a ppe a ls in this m

a tte r. AFFIRM E D in par t and V ACAT E D and RE M ANDE D in par t.

5