N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
SPR AW LDEF, a

public be ne fit c orporation; e t a l.,

Pe t i tione rs-Appe lle e s,
v. GUIDIVILLE R

A NC HERIA OF C ALIFOR

NIA, a n India n tribe , R e sponde nt-Appe lla

nt,
and C ITY OF R IC HM OND, a C a lifornia m unic ipa lity ; e t a l.,

R e sponde nts. No. 19-16278 D.C . No. 4:18-c v-03918-YGR

M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 17, 2020 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
SEP 22 2020 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * 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 e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : SC HR OEDER , W . FLETC HER , a nd HUNSAKER , C irc uit Judge s. The Guidiville R anc he ria of C a lifornia , a

fe d e ra lly re c ogniz e d India

n tribe (the “ Tribe ” ), a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r de ny i ng its m otion to dism iss ba se d on triba l sove re ign im m unity . W e have a

ppe lla te jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. Se e Burlington N . & Santa Fe

Ry . C o. v . Vaughn , 509 F.3d 1085, 1091 (9th C ir. 2007). W e a ffirm
. This c a se c onc e rns a

disputeove r a

se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt a

nd stipula te d judgm e nt re a c h e d be twe e n the Tribe an d the C ity of R ic hm o nd, C a lifornia , in prior litiga tion. TheTribe brought suit a ga inst theC ity in 2012 a l le ging tha t the C ity ha d bre a c he d a

La nd Disposition Agre e m e nt a llowing de ve lopm e nt of a c a sino on the R ic hm ond c oa s tline at Point M olate . Se e Guidiv ille Ranc he ria of C

a l. v

. Unite d State s , 704 F. App’ x 655, 657 (9th C ir. 2017). Afte r six y e ars of litiga tion, the p artie s e nte re d into a

se ttle m e nt a g re e m e nt a

nd stipula te d judgm e nt. The
a gre e m e nt sta

te d tha t the distric t c o urt “ sha ll re ta i n jurisdic tion ove r this Ac tion to
e nforc e the te rm s of this Judgm e nt.” Soon a fte r the a gre e m e nt wa s e nte re d into, plaintiffs in this a

c tion (c olle c tive ly , “ SPR

AW LDEF” ) file d a

pe tition for writ of adm inistra tive m andate in C a lifornia

sta te c o urt. The pe tition alle ge s tha t the C ity e nte re d into the

2se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt a nd stipula te d judgm e nt in viola

tion of theB rown Ac t, whic h
re quire s ope n m e e tings be fore loc a l gove rnm e nt a ge nc ie s ta ke c e rta in a c tions. C a l. Gov’ t C ode §§ 54950 e t se q. The C ity re m ove d the a c tion to fe de ra l c ourt, a nd SPR AW LDEF sought to join the Tribe a s a

de fe nda nt.

“ B e c a use the y are sove re ign e ntitie s, India n tribe s a re im m une from
unc onse n te d suit in sta

te or fe de ra l c ourt.” Mc C le ndon v . Unite d State

s , 885 F.2d 627, 629 (9th C ir. 1989). Howe ve r, a tribe c onse nts to a

c ourt’ s e xe rc ise of jurisdic tion by initia

ting a la wsuit. Id. at

630. W he n a tribe se e ks a

n e quita ble de c re e , it “ a ssum e [s] the risk tha t a ny e quita ble judgm e nt se c ure d c ould be
m odifie d if wa

rrante d by

c ha nge d c irc um sta

nc e s .” Unite d State

s v . Ore gon , 657 F.2d 1009, 1015 (9th C ir. 1981). Tha t is, whe n a tribe c onse nts to a

c ourt’ s
c ontinue d e xe rc ise of jurisdic t ion to e nforc e the te rm s of a n e quita ble orde r, it a lso
c onse n ts to thec ourt’ s jurisdic tion ove r suits se e king to mo dify or se t a side tha

t orde r. S e e id. The Tribe he re e xpre ssly

c onse nte d to thedistric t c ourt’ s c ontinue d e xe rc ise of jurisdic tion to e nforc e the te rm s of the stipula te d judgm e nt. In so doing, it
c onse n te d to the c ourt’ s jurisdic tion ove r suits se e king to modify it or se t it a side
. SPR AW LDEF’ s suit se e ks to void the se ttle m e nt a

n d re sulting judgm

e nt, se t a side
any C ity a c tions ta

ke n pursua

nt to thejudgm e nt, a

nd re quire the C ity to c om ply
3with theB rown Ac t in futurede libe rations. Thec om pla i nt doe s not spe c i fy

any othe r re m e die s sought aga inst theTribe . The suit the re fore fa l ls within the sc ope of the Tribe ’ s wa ive r of sove re ign im m unity in the se ttle m e nt a gre e m e nt a nd stipula te d judgm e nt. The Tribe a l so a

rgue s tha t this c a se is m oot be c a

use in a n ope n m e e t ing the C ity ha s re c e ntly

a pprove d a n am e nde d fina l judgm e nt in theprior litiga tion. W e
are una ble to de c ide on the lim ite d re c ord be fore us whe the r SPR AW LDEF’ s suit is m o ot. The Tribe is fre e to m ake this a rgum e nt to the distric t c ourt in thefirst insta nc e . AFFIRM E D.

4