N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
AB B A B AIL B ONDS, INC ., a C a lifornia C orporation, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JEFF L. GR

UB B E, Ac t ing Triba l C ounc il C ha irm an, Agua

C a lie nte B and of C ha

uilla India ns; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-56701 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-06593-TJH-DTB
M EM O R ANDUM *

R IC HARD S HELD R

ETIREM ENT TR UST, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JEFF L. GR

UB B E, Triba l C ounc il C ha irm an, Agua

C a lie nte B and of C ahuilla India ns; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s, And No. 14-56760 D.C . No. 5:14-c v-00257-TJH-DTB



# FIL ED
MAR 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

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

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.C LIFFORD W ILSON M ATHEW S, AKA

C lifford W ilson M atthe ws, De fe nda

nt. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Te rry J. Ha

tte r, Se nior Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 8, 2016 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : REINHAR

DT, M U R GUIA, a

nd OW ENS, C irc uit Judge s . AB B A B a il B onds, Inc . a nd R ic ha rd S. He ld R e t ire m e nt Trust a ppe a l from the d istric t c o urt’ s dismissa l of the ir suits a ga inst na m e d offic ia l s of the Agua C a lie nte B a

nd of C a huilla India

ns, a fe de ra lly re c ogniz e d India

n tribe . The distric t
c ourt de te rm ine d it did not ha ve subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion ove r e i the r a c tion. W e
a ffirm the dism issa l for la c k of jurisdic t ion. B oth a ppe lla nts obta ine d m one y

judgm e nts a ga inst a

m e m be r of the Tribe in C a lifornia Supe rior C ourt. The sta

te c ourt a lso issue d c orre sponding a ssignm e nt orde rs re quiring theTribe to m ake pa ym e nts to a

ppe lla nts from the individual
m e m b e r’ s “ re gula

r pe riodic m onthly

pa ym e nts” from the Tribe to sa tisfy the

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). 2re spe c tive judgm e nts. Though the triba l offic ia ls ha d the powe r to a uthoriz e suc h pa ym e nts, the y

re fuse d to do so on the

ba sis tha t sove re ign im

m unity ba rre d
e nforc e m e nt of the a ssignm e nt orde rs. Appe l la nts brought the

insta nt a c tions in fe de ra l distric t c o urt, e ffe c tive ly to e nforc e those sa

m e sta te c o urt a ssignm e nt orde rs. Appe lla nts ha ve fa ile d to e sta

b lish tha t the distric t c ourt ha s subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1331, whic h provide s tha

t fe de ra l c ourts “ s ha ll ha

ve origina l jurisdic tion of a ll c ivil a c tions a rising unde r the C onstitution, la ws, or tre atie s of the Unite d

State s.” Se e Alv arado v
. TableMountain Ranche ria , 509 F.3d 1008, 1016 (9th C ir. 2007) (“ To c onfe r subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion in a n a c tion
a ga inst a sove re ign, in a d dition to a wa i ve r of sove re ign im

m unity , the re m

ust be sta tutory a uthority ve sting a distric t c ourt with subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion.” ). “ For
a c a s e to ‘ arise unde r’ fe de ra l la w, a pla intiff’ s we l l-ple a de d c om p la int m ust
e sta blish e i the r (1) tha

t fe d e ra l la

w c re at e s the c a

use of a c tion or (2) tha

t the pla i ntiff’ s a sse rte d right to re lie f de pe nds on there solution of a substa ntia l que stion of fe d e ra l la

w .” Pe a body

C oal C o. v . N av ajo N ation , 373 F.3d 945, 949 (9th C ir. 2004) (c iting Franc hise

Tax Bd. v . C onstr. Laborers Vac ation Tr. , 463 U.S. 1, 27- 28 (1983)). “ The fa c t tha t the de fe nda

nt is a Native sove re ign is not, by itse lf, suffic i e nt to ra ise a

fe de ra l que stion.” Id. (c iting Gila Riv e r Indian C mty . v . 3He nningson, Durham & Ric hardson , 626 F.2d 708, 714 (9th C ir.1980)).

Appe l la nts ha ve not e sta

b lishe d fe de ra l que s tion jurisdic tion unde r e ithe r prong of the F ranc hise Tax Board te st. First, a ppe lla nts did not bring suit unde r a fe d e ra l c a

use of a c t ion. The ir
a sse rte d ba sis for fe de ra l jurisdic tion, 28 U.S.C . § 1360, ne ithe r c onfe rs jurisdic tion on fe de ra l c o urts nor provide s a priva t e right of a c tion. To the
c ontra ry , § 1360 gra

nts C a lifornia

sta te c ourts jurisdic tion ove r “ c ivil c a u se s of
a c tion be t we e n India

ns or to whic h India

ns a re pa rtie s” whic h

arise in India

n c ountry within C a lifornia , “ to the sa m e e xte nt tha t [C a l ifornia ] ha s jurisdic t ion
ove r othe r c ivil c a

use s of a c tion.” § 1360(a). Wh ile § 1360(b) limits this jurisdic tion, in tha

t it provide s tha

t a sta te c ourt m ay

not “ a uthoriz e the
a lie nation . . . of a

ny . . . prope rty

. . . be longing to a

ny India n or a ny India n tribe . . . tha

t is he ld in trust by

the Unite d State s,” this se c tion doe s not c onfe r jurisdic tion on fe de ra l c o urts. S e eK 2 Am. C o rp. v . Roland Oil &

Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1028 (9th C ir. 2011) (“ The distric t c ourt c orre c t ly c o nc lude d tha

t § 1360(b) limits thee xe rc ise of sta t e jurisdic tion; it doe s not c onfe r jurisdic t ion on fe de ra l c o urts.” ); se ealso N isqually Indian Tribe v . Gre

goire , 623 F.3d 923, 929 (9th C ir. 2010) (“ A pla i ntiff m ay only bring a c a u se of a c tion to e nforc e a fe de ra l la w if the la

w provide s a

priva te right of a c tion.” ). Nor ha ve a ppe lla nts 4de m onstra

te d tha t C ongre s s inte nde d § 1360 to im ply a fe de ra l c a

use of a c tion. Se e N isqually Indian Tribe , 623 F.3d a

t 929 (“ [A] n im

plie d right of a c tion is only
a uthoriz e d whe n the re is c le ar e vide nc e C ongre ss inte nde d suc h a right to bepa

rt of the sta tute .” ). Se c ond, a ppe lla nt s do not a sse rt a

right to re lie f unde r a

non-fe de ra l c la im that “ ne c e ssa rily de pe nds on re solution of a substa ntia l que stion of fe de ra l la w.” Franc hise

Tax Bd. , 463 U.S. a

t 28. Fe de ra l la

w is re l e va

nt to a ppe lla nts’ sta te -law c la im s only

to the e x te nt

tha t a ppe lle e s a sse rt sove re ign im m unity a s a de fe nse to
e nforc e m e nt of the sta

te -c o urt judgm e nt. This doe s not provide a ba sis for fe de ra l jurisdic tion unde r the we ll-ple a de d c om p la int rule , a s “ [f] e de ra l jurisdic tion c annot hinge upon de fe n se s or c ounte rc la im s, whe the r a c tua l or a ntic ipat e d.” K

2 Am. C orp. , 653 F.3d a

t 1029; se ealso Morongo Band of Mission Indians v . C al. State Bd. of Equalization , 858 F.2d 1376, 1386 (9th C i r. 1988) (finding no subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion be c a

use “ [f] e de ra l que stions, e .g., whe the r the B and is im m une from a sta te tax le vy unde r the fe de ra l c om m on la w doc trine of triba l sove re ign im m unity , would be inje c te d into the B oa rd’ s sta te -law a c tion only

by wa y of de fe n se ” ). AFFIRM E D.

5