N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT WALTER

R OSALES; e t a l., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, v. AM Y DUTSC HKE, R e giona l Dire c tor, B ure a u of India n Affa irs; e t a l ., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-16967 D.C . No. 2:15-c v-01145-KJM -KJN M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Kim be rly J. M ue lle r, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Nove m

be r 13, 2019 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : W . FLETC HER

and B ADE, C irc uit Judge s , a nd M O SKOW ITZ, ** Distric t Judge . This is a

t le a st the third c a se in whic h Pla intiff-Appe l la nt W a lte r R osa le s a lle ge s tha

t the c onstruc tion of a

c a sino by

Ja m u l India n Villa g e (the “ Tribe ” ), a 

# FIL ED DEC 11 2019 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble B arry Te d M oskowitz , Unite d

State s Distric t Judgefor the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de s igna tion.fe de ra lly

re c ogniz e d India

n tribe , unla

wfully disturbe d hum an re m a ins a nd fune rary obje c t s. Se eRosale

s v . Unite d State

s , No. 07c v0624, 2007 W L 4233060, at *5–10 (S.D. C a l. Nov. 28, 2007) (unpublished), appe al dismissed for failure to prose c ute , No. 08-55207 (9th C ir. Aug. 12, 2008); Rosale s v . De p’t of Transp. , No. D066585, 2016 W

L 124647, a

t *1–3 (C a l. C t. App. Ja

n. 12, 2016) (unpublishe d). As in thosee a

rlie r c a s e s, we hold tha

t the c la im s we re prope rly dism isse d for fa ilure to join the

Tribe . Fe de ra l R u le of C i vil Proc e dure 19 re quire s the dism issa l of a c a se whe re an a bse nt pa rty ha s a n inte re st in thelitiga

t ion tha t would beim

pa ire d if the litiga

tion we re to proc e e d in its a

bse nc e , joinde r of tha

t pa rty is unfe a sible , a

nd the a c tion c ould not proc e e d in e quity and good c o nsc ie nc e without it. DineC itize n s Against Ruining Our Env ’t v . Bure au of Indian Affairs , 932 F.3d 843, 851 (9th C ir. 2019).

“ W e re vie w a

R ule 19 dismissa l for a

buse of disc re tion a

nd unde rly ing le ga l c onc lusions denovo.” Salt Riv e r Proje c t Agric . Improv e m e nt &Pow e r Dist. v . Le e , 672 F.3d 1176, 1179 (9th C ir. 2012) (c i tation omitte d). The Tribe ha s a

substa ntia l inte re st in this litiga

tion be c a use the c om

pla int c onte nds tha

t the Tribe doe s not e xe rc ise gove rnm e nta l powe r ove r the la nd on whic h the c a s ino wa s built. Plaintiffs’ -Appe lla nts’ c la i m s turn la

rge ly on the sta

tus of this la nd. On a ppe a l, Pla intiffs-Appe l la

nts do not dispute

the distric t c ourt’ s 2c onc lusion tha t joinde r of the Tribe is unfe a sible be c a use it is im

m une from this suit under the doc t

rine of triba l sove re i gn im m unity . Eve n a ssum ing tha t the Tribe ’ s sove re ign im

m unity doe s not e xte n d to its offic e rs he re be c a u se the y are prope rly sue d in the ir pe rsona l c a

pa c itie s, the inte re s ts of thoseindividuals in de fe nding a

c la im for dam a ge s m ay

not a lign with those

of the Tribe . Se e She rmoe n v . Unite d State s , 982 F.2d 1312, 1318 (9th C ir. 1992); c f . Salt Riv e r Proje c t Agric . Improv e me nt &Pow e r Dist. , 672 F.3d a t 1180–81. The distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion in c onc luding tha t the Tribe would not ade quate ly be re pre se nte d by

the re m a ining pa

rtie s in this suit a

nd tha t it would be ine quita

ble to proc e e d in its a

bse n c e . AFFIRM E D.

3