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

NIA, Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. PIC A YUNE R

ANC HER IA OF C HUKC HANSI INDIANS OF C ALIFOR

NIA, AKA Distribute e s, a Fe de ra lly R e c ogniz e d India

n Tribe , De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt, PIC A YUNE R

ANC HER IA OF C HUKC HANSI INDIANS OF C ALIFOR

NIA, AKA Ne w Triba l C ounc il, Fe de ra lly R e c ogniz e d India

n Tribe , De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 16-15096 D.C . No. 1:14-c v-01593-LJO-SAB
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 Lawre nc e J. O’ Ne ill, C hie f Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 10, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia 

# FIL ED
JUN 05 2018 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.B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , FER NANDEZ, C irc uit Judge , a nd EZR A, ** Distric t Judge
. De fe nda nt-Appe lla

nts, individua

l m e m be rs of the Pic ay

une R anc he ria

of C hukc ha nsi India ns of C a lifornia

Tribe (“ t he Distribute e s” ), a

p pe a l the distric t
c ourt’ s e n try

of judgm e nt a

nd pe rm ane nt injunc tion, whic h e njoine d the Tribe an d its a g e n ts from

c e rta i n c onduc t re late d to e nsuring thehe a lth, sa fe ty , a nd we lfare of the p ublic with re spe c t to the Tribe ’ s ope ra tion of its C hukc h ansi Gold Re sort a nd C a sino. TheDistribute e s a lle ge tha t the distric t c ourt e rrone ously re c ogniz e d a fa c t ion of triba l m e m

b e rs a s the rightful tribal le a d e rship, a n d fa i le d to re c ogniz e
and de fe r to triba l c ourt rulings re ga rding the m a

k e up of the Triba l C ounc il a nd its
e le c tion. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 ove r the a ppe a l of the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e n t a nd pe rm ane nt injunc tion. B e c a use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c t

ua l a nd proc e dura l history

of the c a se , we ne e d not re c o unt it he re . C ontra

ry to Appe lle e ’ s a sse rtion, theDistribute e s ha ve sta nding to pursue this a ppe a l be c a

use the distric t c ourt e njoine d “ a ll groups c la im ing to c onstitute the triba l gove rnm e nt,” whic h a rgua bly form s the ba sis of theDistribute e s’ c l a im
.

* * The Honora

ble David A. Ezra , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii, sitting by de signa

tion. 2None the le ss, the a ppe a l fa ils on them e rits. First, the injurie s a lle ge d by the Distribute e s, re c o gnition of the Inte rim and Ne w Triba l C ounc ils a nd fa ilure to
re c o gniz e triba l c o urt rulings, a re not pa rt of the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision. The distric t c o urt did not de te rm ine whic h disputa nt triba l fa c tion re pre se nte d the rightful tribal c ounc il or le a de rship. R athe r, the distric t c ourt sum m ariz e d the intra -triba l disputeam o ng the fa c tions, thea c tions ta ke n by the B IA and the IB IA with re spe c t to the2010 Inte rim Triba l C ounc il, and the Oc tobe r 2015 Triba l C ounc il Ele c tion. Furthe r, the triba l c ourt rulings re fe re nc e d by the Distribute e s
we re irre le va

nt to theissue s be fore the distric t c ourt: the Tribe ’ s c om plia nc e with the p rovisions of the

c la ss III ga

m ing C o m

pa c t be twe e n the Tribe and the State of C a lifornia re quiring theTribe to e nsure the public ’ s he a lth, sa fe ty , a nd we lfare in ope ra t ing its C a s ino. B e c a use the distric t c ourt did not re c ogniz e one fa c tion ove r anothe r, and did not e rr by fa iling to re c ogniz e triba l c ourt rulings tha t we re irre le va

nt to theissue s be fore it, re ve rsa l of the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt or pe rm ane nt injunc tion would not re dre ss or ha

ve a pra c tic a l e ffe c t on the injurie s a lle ge d by the Distribute e s. On the m e rits, the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in gra

nting the injunc tion. TheState of C a lifornia suffic ie ntly

e s ta blishe d irre pa

ra ble ha rm in the da nge r that the c ontinue d

c o nflic t ove r the triba l c a sino ope ra t ions pose d to public

3sa fe ty . The re we re no a de quate re m e die s at la w . The ba la

nc e of ha rdships fa vore d the State
. The public inte re s t wa s se rve d by the e n try of a pe rm ane nt injunc tion. The distric t c ourt a c te d e ntire ly prope rly
. All pe nding m otions a

re de nie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

4