Source: http://lawsdocbox.com/US_Government_Resources/72363907-Case-2-14-cv-tln-ckd-document-19-filed-03-05-15-page-1-of-11.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 18:15:10+00:00

Document:
Download "Case 2:14-cv TLN-CKD Document 19 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 11"
4 Case :-cv-0-tln-ckd Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation v. Schwarzenegger, 0 F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 00; see In re Indian Gaming Related Cases, F. Supp. d 0, 0 (N.D. Cal. 00 aff d, F.d 0 (th Cir. 00. In Rincon, the state s belief that IGRA permitted revenue sharing was deemed objectively unreasonable because IGRA expressly condemns state attempts to compel fees for purposes other than those specified in U.S.C. 0 (d((c(iii. In the instant case, however, the dispute arises not from the terms of the Compact but, rather, from the process of entering into a valid compact. As such, this is a matter of first impression. Because IGRA does not address how a state and an Indian tribe enter into a valid compact, the 0th Circuit recognized that its very silence on this point supports the view that Congress intended that state law determine the procedure for executing valid gaming compacts. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 0 F.d at. Thus, to determine whether the Legislature acted in good faith under IGRA, a court should examine the Legislature s actions within the context of the legislative process. In California, the legislative power of the state is conferred by the California Constitution upon the Legislature, acting by and through its individual Members. Cal. Const. art. IV,. The legislative power is plenary and exercised at the discretion of the Members of the Legislature. California Redevelopment Assn. v. Matosantos, Cal. th, -, Cal. Rptr. d (0. As a legislative body, the Legislature possesses the power to govern its own internal affairs, including the rules governing its own proceedings and process. Cal. Const. art. IV,. Generally, courts will not interfere with the operation of the legislative process; instead, courts will defer to the actions of the Legislature, and presume that the Legislature acted with proper motives. Schabarum v. California Legislature, 0 Cal. App. th 0, -, 0 Cal. Rptr. d (. The legislative role necessitates that policy decisions be made Respect for the Legislature s constitutional role demands that courts refuse to judge the motives of the legislators. Id. at, citing California Teachers Assn. v. Hayes, Cal. App. th, Cal. Rptr. d (. Courts interpreting IGRA have also been reluctant to disturb the operation of the legislative process. See, Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin v. U.S., F.d 0, (th Cir. 00.
5 Case :-cv-0-tln-ckd Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 In order to avoid interfering with the Legislature s power, an inquiry under IGRA into whether Tribal-State gaming compacts were negotiated in good faith must be evaluated in the context of the Legislature s normal legislative process and whether, within the totality of the negotiations, the process the Legislature undertook to ratify the Compact was objectively reasonable. Rincon, 0 F.d at 0. This approach is consistent with the purposes of IGRA because it respects the state s sovereign interest to determine its own process for participating in the operation of class II and class III gaming within its own boundaries, while ensuring that the good faith obligation is complied with. Indeed, the failure of the Legislature to ratify a Tribal-State gaming compact cannot be construed, as claimed by Plaintiff, to be per se conclusive evidence of the State s failure to negotiate in good faith. To do so would render the power vested with the Legislature to ratify compacts meaningless. But Plaintiff claims that the Legislature not only failed to ratify, but that it took no action at all related to the ratification of the Compact. (Compl.. This is simply not true. The Legislature accepted the Compact from the Governor shortly after it was signed on August 0, 0. The Senate subsequently sought input and suggestions from stakeholders in an effort to better understand the impact of Tribal-State gaming compacts, including the Enterprise Rancheria Compact, on the State. On May, 0, the Compact was amended into Assembly Bill 0 (AB 0. (last visited on February, 0. On May, 0, AB 0 was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules. Id. Thereafter, AB 0 was allowed to remain with the Senate Committee on Rules, a decision consistent with internal legislative rules permitting the Rules Committees of each house to refer bills to a policy committee, or to retain the bill as the Committee sees fit. Assembly Rule (a, Senate Rule (g. It is important to note that out of the thousands of bills introduced each year, only a relatively small percentage are actually taken up for a vote. As with the other thousands of bills that were not voted on in the 0- legislative session, it would be impossible to impute any particular motive Judicial notice is requested for the official records cited in this paragraph, which can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 0.
6 Case :-cv-0-tln-ckd Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 to the Legislature to explain why AB 0 was not taken up. Certainly, it would be inappropriate to attribute to the Legislature as a whole the motives of any individual Member. Even where a court performs a careful examination of the nature and purpose of state legislation, it may look only to the intent of the Legislature as a whole, and not to the motives of individual Members. See U.S. Trust Co. v. New Jersey, U.S., S. Ct. 0, L. Ed. d (; Board of Administration v. Wilson, Cal. App. th 0,, Cal. Rptr. d 0 (; Valdes v. Cory, Cal. App. d,, Cal. Rptr. (Ct. App.. Thus, the motives of individual Members for not bringing AB 0 to a vote are not relevant to the Court s determination of whether IGRA was complied with. An examination of the Legislature s ratification process of Tribal-State compacts over the past years reveals that all of the compacts were ratified by statute. California Gambling Control Commission, Ratified Tribal-State Gaming Compacts (New and Amended, (last visited February, 0. As there is no legislative rule that compels the houses to pass a bill ratifying a compact within a certain period of time once the compact has been accepted from the Governor, the length of time required to ratify any given compact by statute has varied. Some compacts were introduced in bills at the beginning of a legislative session, while others were amended into other bills at some time during a two-year session. Some were referred to one policy committee, while others were referred to several policy committees for consideration. Some included urgency clauses that allowed the bills to take effect immediately upon enactment, while others did not. Some were placed on a consent calendar, which allows noncontroversial bills to be passed as a group from one committee to another committee or to the full Assembly or Senate without discussion, while others were not. (last visited February, 0. In sum, the legislative process for any given bill is varied and unpredictable. Moreover, it is common for a bill not to be voted on within a legislative session. Many bills are reintroduced from one legislative session to another. To the extent that there is a normal legislative process as dictated by the Legislature s power to govern its own internal affairs, the Legislature complied with that process with regard to AB 0 and, therefore, was objectively reasonable in its actions.
9 Case :-cv-0-tln-ckd Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 0 IGRA authorizes state officials acting pursuant to their authority held under state law to enter into gaming compacts on behalf of the state. State ex rel. Clark v. Johnson, -NMSC-0, 0 N.M.,, 0 P.d,. But, as previously noted, subdivision (f of Section of Article IV of the California Constitution creates separate roles for the Governor and the Legislature with regard to negotiation, conclusion, and ratification of Tribal-State gaming compacts. These powers are independent of each other, and consequently, under subdivision (f, the Legislature is not required to have any direct role in negotiating and concluding Tribal-State compacts, and the Governor has no direct role in their ratification. This comports with the doctrine of separation of powers, which separates the powers of the government into three branches and precludes one branch from exercising the powers given to another. Cal. Const. art. III,. Consistent with their constitutionally-mandated powers, the Governor and the Legislature have different roles with respect to Tribal-State compacts. The Governor s negotiation of compacts is equivalent to the execution of law, and the Legislature s power to ratify is consistent with its authority to create laws. None of the authority cited by Plaintiff supports an interpretation of IGRA that would require the Legislature to step beyond its constitutional powers by negotiating or proposing new terms to a compact. Moreover, Plaintiff s reliance on case law interpreting the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA to analyze the duty of good faith negotiations under IGRA is unavailing. Courts have not applied case law interpreting the NLRA wholesale to cases that require an interpretation of IGRA. As the court in In re Indian Gaming Related Cases recognized, the relation of employers to unions is not analogous to that of States to tribes. In re Indian Gaming Related Cases, F. Supp. d at 00. Not only is the employer-labor union relationship dissimilar to the Indian tribe-state relationship, but the processes by which these agreements are formed cannot be analogized because the bifurcated process of forming Tribal-State compacts is unique. Only with respect to Tribal-State compacts does the California Constitution assign distinct roles to the executive and legislative In fact, Plaintiff concedes it attempted no negotiations since the Compact was transmitted to the Legislature by the Governor after it was signed on August 0, 0, and that no agreement has been made or sought to extend the Compact s expiration date. As Plaintiff itself has declined to attempt any further negotiations or to seek an agreement to extend the expiration date, Plaintiff cannot reasonably assert that the Legislature s ratification procedure alone constitutes a refusal to negotiate in good faith. See, In re Indian Gaming Related Cases, F. Supp. d at 0-.
Case: 3:13-cv-00121-wmc Document #: 1 Filed: 02/19/13 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, ) INCORPORATED, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v.
In the Supreme Court of the State of California UNITED AUBURN INDIAN COMMUNITY OF THE AUBURN RANCHERIA, v. Plaintiff and Appellant, EDMUND G. BROWN JR., as Governor, Defendant and Respondent. Case No.
CALIFORNIA FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent.
STATE V. BRANHAM, 2004-NMCA-131, 136 N.M. 579, 102 P.3d 646 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROLAND H. BRANHAM, Defendant-Appellee.
JOSEPH ROGERS, BY AND ) THROUGH HIS MOTHER AND NEXT ) FRIEND, JUDY LONG, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Shelby Law No T.D. ) vs.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: October 12, 2010 Docket No. 28,618 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, BRIAN BOBBY MONTOYA, Defendant-Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF FLORIDA PRO-ART DENTAL LAB, INC. Petitioner, V-STRATEGIC GROUP, LLC. Respondent.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v.