N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
NISENAN TRIB E OF THE NEVADA C ITY R ANC H ER IA; e t a l., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. SALLY JEW E LL, in he r offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s Se c re ta ry of the Inte rior; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15541 D.C . No. 5:10-c v-00270-JF
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 Je re m y D. Foge l, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

M ay 13, 2016 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WARDLAW , PAEZ, a nd B EA, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff-Appe lla

nts, The Nise na

n Tribe of the Ne va da

C i ty R anc he ria , R ic ha rd Johnson, a

n d othe r individua l m e m

be rs of the Ne va da

C ity R a n c he ria 

# FIL ED MAY25 2016 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 9th C ir. R . 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 ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).(“ Appe lla

nts” ), a sse rt tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in dismissing the ir c la im s with pre j udic e on the grounds tha t suc h c la i m s we re tim e -barre d unde r the Adm inistra

tive Proc e dure Ac t’ s (“ APA’ s” ) six-y e ar statute of lim ita tions. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2401. W e find no e rror in the distric t c ourt’ s a n a l y s is, a nd we a ffirm
. I. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting Appe lla

n t’ s R ule 60(a ) m otion to
c orre c t a c le ric a l e rror in the 1983 Stipula tion for Entry

of Judgm e nt (the

“ Stipula tion” ) in the Hardw ic k

a c tion nuncpro tunc , 1 ra the r tha n a s of the date of the c ourt’ s M arc h 7, 2014 orde r. To the e xte nt Appe lla nts a re c ha lle nging the distric t c o urt’ s jurisdic tion to e n te r suc h orde r nuncpro tunc , our re vie w is de
nov o . Se e Unite d

State s v . Sumne r , 226 F.3d 1005, 1009 (9th C ir. 2000). To the
e xte nt Appe lla

nts c ha lle nge the distric t c ourt’ s e xe rc ise of its disc re tion to issue an orde r nuncpro tunc , we re vie w the c ourt’ s ruling for a buse of disc re tion. Atk

ins v
. W ain, Samue l & C

o . , 69 F.3d 970, 973 (9th C ir. 1995). A c ourt’ s jurisdic tion to e nte r an orde r nuncpro tunc “ is limi te d to m aking the re c ord re fle c t w h a t the distric t c ourt a c tua lly inte nde d to do a t a n e arlie r date ,

1 “Nunc pro tunc signifie s now for the n, or in othe r words, a thing is done now, whic h sha ll ha

ve the sa m e le ga l forc e and e ffe c t a s if done at [the ] tim e whe n it ought to ha

ve be e n done .” Unite d State s v . Alle n , 153 F.3d 1037, 1044 (9th C ir. 1998) (quoting B la c k’ s La w Dic tiona

ry 964 (5th e d . 1979)). -2-but whic h it did not suffic ie n tly e xpre ss or did not ac c om plish dueto som e e rror or ina d ve rte nc e .” Sumne r , 226 F.3d a t 1010. Appe lla

nts a sse rte d in the ir m otion to
c orre c t the Hardw ic k c ourt’ s c le ric a l e rror that, a bse nt the e rror, the Ne v a da C ity R anc he ria

would ha ve be e n am ong the pa

rtie s whose c la im s we re dism i sse d without pre

judic e by the 1983 Stipula tion. B y granting Appe lla

nts’ m otion nunc pro tunc , the distric t c ourt m e re ly c orre c te d the re c ord to m ake it “ re fle c t what the [ H ardw ic k ] c ourt a c tua lly

inte nde d to do a

t a n e a rlie r date , but whic h it did not suffic i e ntly

. . . a c c o m

plish dueto som e e rror or ina d ve rte nc e .” Id. The distric t
c ourt’ s a c tions he re fe ll we l l within the a uthority re c ogniz e d in S

umne r. W e are not pe rsua de d by

Appe lla nts’ argum e n t tha

t a c ourt la c ks a

uthority to
c orre c t a n e rror nuncpro tunc

if the c orre c tion would adve rse l y a ffe c t a pa

rty ’ s

“ substa n tive ” right. Appe lla

nts c ite no c a s e tha

t ha s so he ld. Inde e d, in Unite d State s v . Inoc e n c io , 328 F.3d 1207 (9th C ir. 2003), we a ffirm e d a distric t c ourt’ s
a uthority to c orre c t a

n e arlie r fa ilure to re voke a de fe nda n t’ s na tura liz a tion nunc pro tunc , whe re suc h re v oc ation should ha ve (but for a

c le ric a l e rror) followe d
a utom a t ic a lly

from the de fe n da

nt’ s c onvic t ion for na

tura liz a tion fra

ud. Id. at 1208–11. The

late r re voc a tion of na

tura liz a tion c le arly a ffe c te d the de fe nda nt’ s substa ntive rights in Inoc e nc i o . Ac c ordingly , we re je c t Appe lla n ts’ argum e nt tha

t the d istric t c o urt e rre d be c a use c orre c ting the H

ardw ic k c ourt’ s e rror nuncpro tunc -3-re sta

rte d the sta

tute of lim ita

tions on Appe lla

nts’ c urre nt c la im s a s of 1983— thus
re nde ring Appe lla

nts’ pre s e nt a c tion untime ly
. In sum , we c onc l u de that the distric t c ourt ne ithe r e xc e e de d its jurisdic tion
nor a buse d its disc re tion in gra nting Appe l la

nts’ m otion to c orre c t a

c le ric a l e rror
nuncpro tunc . I I. Appe lla nts ne xt a rgue t hat the distric t c ourt e rre d in pe rm itting the gove rnm e nt to ra i se the APA’ s sta tute of lim ita

tions a s an a ffirm at ive de fe nse . W e re vie w denov o whe the r an a ffirm a tive de fe n se ha s be e n wa ive d, Ow e ns v . K aise r Found. He a lth Plan, Inc
. , 244 F.3d 708, 713 (9th C ir. 2001), a nd a ga in find no
e rror in the distric t c ourt’ s a na ly sis. The gove rnm e nt tim e ly a sse rte d the APA’ s six-y e ar statute of lim ita

tions in both its a

nswe r to Appe lla

nts’ origina l c om

pla int
and in its a

nswe r to Appe lla

nts’ first a

m e n de d c om

pla int. The gove rnm e n t the re fore tim e ly

ra ise d tha

t de fe nse . Se e Fe d. R
. C iv. Proc . 8(c ). No la w supports Appe lla

nts’ position tha

t wa ive r of a

sta tute of lim ita

tions de fe nse in a

n e a rlie r a c t ion ba

rs the a sse rtion of tha

t de fe nse in a diffe re n t ac tion ,

-4-file d

ne arly forty y e ars la te r. 2 The c a se s Appe l la

nts c ite m e re ly

hold tha t “ [t] he filing of a c la ss a c tion tolls the sta

tute of lim ita

tions a s to a ll a sse rte d

m e m be rs of the c la s s,” until, for insta

nc e , the c la ss a c tion is dism isse d or the c la s s de c e rtifie d, C row n , C ork & Se al C o. v . Park e r , 462 U.S. 345, 350 (1983) (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d), or a

pla i ntiff opts out of the

c la ss, se e Am. Pipe

& C onst. C o. v . Utah , 414 U.S. 538, 550 (1974). B e c a use we re j e c t Appe lla

nts’ pre m ise tha

t the Hardw ic k a c tion re m a ine d pe nding (a nd the Ne va da

C ity R anc he ria re m a ine d a pa rty to tha t a c tion) until 2014, the se c a se s do not c om pe l a ruling in Appe l la

nts’ favor. He re , one of two things oc c urre d: (1) the Ne v a da C ity R anc he ria c la i m s we re dism isse d a s of 1983 by the Stipula tion, c o rre c te d n unc pro tunc , or (2) the Ne va da C ity R anc he ria

c la i m s we re dism isse d in 1992, when the c ourt e nte re d a

“ Judgm e nt” c losing the Hardw ic k c a se and fina lly disposing of “ a ll” re m a ining
c la im s. Eithe r way , the c urre nt a c tion, file d in 2010, wa s tim e -ba rre d by the APA’ s six-y e ar sta

tute of lim ita

tions.

2 Appe lla nts a re c orre c t tha

t the gove rnm e nt wa ive d a ny sta tute of lim ita

tions de fe nse s it m ay

have ha d in the Hardw ic k a c tion. Thedistric t c ourt found— and Appe l la n ts do not dispute

— that Appe lla

nts’ c la im s re l a ting to the Ne va d a C ity R anc he ria

a c c rue d in 1964 when the notic e of te rm inat ion of the Ne va da C ity R anc he ria

wa s publishe d in the Fe de ra l R e giste r. C f. 28 U.S.C . § 2401(a ). Thus, the A PA’ s six-y e ar stat

ute of lim ita

tions ha d run be fore the 1971 H

a rdw ic k a c tion ha d be e n file d. -5-That the 1983 Stipula tion dism isse d Appe lla

nts’ and sim ila

rly situa te d R anc he ria s’ c la im s w ithout pre j udic e doe s not c om

pe l a diffe re nt re s ult. A dism issa l without pre

judic e doe s not inde finite ly pre se rve a

pa rty ’ s right to bring a
ne w a c tion. Nor doe s the 1983 Stipula tion c onta in a

ny provision tha

t would pre c lude the gove rnm e nt from ra ising thesta

tute of lim i tations a s a

de fe nse in a late r a c tion. In sum , the re is no ba sis for finding tha t the gove rnm e nt wa ive d its sta tute of lim ita tions de fe nse in the pre se nt a c tion. The distric t c ourt c orre c tly dism i sse d Appe l la n ts’ suit a s tim e -barre d. III. W e ne e d not re a c h Appe lla nts’ argum e n t tha

t the gove rnm e nt ha s wa ive d its la c he s de fe nse . R e ga

rdle ss whe the r the gove rnm e n t m ay ra ise tha t de fe nse , the distric t c o urt’ s orde r m

ust be uphe ld on sta

tute of lim i tations grounds. For the fore going re a sons, we AFFIRMthe distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing Appe l la n ts’ a c tion.

-6-