Source: https://www.narf.org/nill/bulletins/state/documents/people_becerra_v_huber.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:02:21+00:00

Document:
ARDITH HUBER, Defendant and Appellant.
Trial Court: Humboldt County Superior Court.
Trial Judge: Honorable W. Bruce Watson.
Counsel for Appellant: Law Office of Dario Navarro, Dario F. Navarro; Fredericks Peebles & Morgan, Michael A. Robinson, for defendant and appellant.
Counsel for Respondent: Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Karen Leaf, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Nicholas M. Wellington, Supervising Deputy Attorney General for plaintiff and respondent.
This appeal is from a summary adjudication order and permanent injunction entered in an enforcement action by the Attorney General on behalf of the People of the State of California against Ardith Huber, a member of the Wiyot Band of Indians. Huber owns and operates a tobacco smokeshop on the Table Bluff Rancheria, an area where the Wiyots live just outside of Crescent City, in Humboldt County.
The Attorney General’s complaint alleges a claim for violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (the UCL) and cites as predicate “unlawful acts” violations of three statutes applicable to cigarette sales and marketing, the Tax Stamp Act (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 30161), the Directory Act (Rev. & Tax. Code, § 30165.1, subd. (e)(2)), and the Fire Safety Act (Health & Saf. Code, § 14951, subd. (a)). He also pleads, as separate claims, violations of the Directory Act and the Fire Safety Act. The trial court granted summary adjudication to the People, denied it to Huber, and entered a permanent injunction on all three claims.
Although Huber’s position has evolved in the course of this appeal, her primary argument is an attack on subject matter jurisdiction. She contends that, under a federal statute granting California courts plenary criminal jurisdiction but limited civil jurisdiction over cases arising on Indian reservations, the trial court lacked power to proceed on any of the three claims in this case. She also argues that, under the doctrine of Indian preemption, which limits the reach of state law to conduct by Indians on Indian reservations, all the statutes the Attorney General seeks to enforce here are preempted by paramount federal authority.
The retail component of Huber’s enterprise is onsite business. Customers include tribe members and nonmembers who come to the Table Bluff Rancheria to make purchases there. The wholesale component of the enterprise is with “over two dozen Indian smokeshops owned either by Indian tribes or [i]ndividual tribal members and operated within [other] ... recognized Indian reservation[s].” Deliveries are made to these “inter-tribal” customers by truck, using California highways.
At the center of the appeal are three sets of statutes governing different aspects of the sale and distribution of cigarettes in California. In order to provide some general legal context and set the stage for the specific issues framed by the appeal, we begin by summarizing these statutes.
After sending two cease-and-desist letters charging Huber with violating various provisions of state law governing distribution and sales of cigarettes, the Attorney General filed this action in Humboldt County in March 2011. The complaint pleaded three causes of action. The first alleged violation of the Directory Act. The second alleged violation of the Fire Safety Act. And the third alleged violation of the UCL, specifying violations of the Tax Stamp Act, the Directory Act, and the Fire Safety Act as predicate “unlawful acts” warranting entry of a permanent injunction and an award of civil penalties.
On cross motions for summary adjudication, the trial court denied Huber’s motion; granted the Attorney General’s motion in part, leaving open triable issues concerning civil penalties; and entered a permanent injunction. By its terms, the injunction applies only to sales to nonmembers of the Wiyot Tribe and permits Huber to continue operating so long as she complies with the Directory Act, the Fire Safety Act, and the Tax Stamp Act. This appeal followed.
Huber’s legal position in the course of this appeal has been a bit of a moving target. Her main argument below, and here on appeal—until she retained new counsel and began shifting ground—is that California courts have no subject matter jurisdiction over this case because it involves her on-reservation activities as a member of the Wiyot Tribe. Central to that argument is a federal statute known as Public Law 280. (Pub.L. No. 83-280 (Aug. 15, 1953) 67 Stat. 588-590). Under Public Law 280, Congress granted California and five other states4 plenary criminal jurisdiction over “offenses committed by or against Indians” within Indian country (18 U.S.C. § 1162(a); see People v. McCovey (1980) 36 Cal.3d 517, 535), and limited civil jurisdiction over “causes of action between Indians or to which Indians are parties” in cases arising in Indian country (28 U.S.C. § 1360(a); see Boisclair v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1140, 1147, fn. 4).5 Construing the statute narrowly so that it does not grant these states general civil regulatory control over Indian tribes, the high court held in Bryan v. Itasca County (1976) 426 U.S. 373, 385 (Bryan) that section 4 of Public Law 280 confers limited adjudicative jurisdiction to resolve private civil disputes. A public enforcement action by the Attorney General does not fall within that limited jurisdictional grant, Huber argued.
Following a grant of rehearing, the Attorney General supplied additional authority addressing the threshold issue of adjudicative jurisdiction. Based on that authority, we are now persuaded that the key United States Supreme Court case here is not Bryan, but Williams.
The Attorney General argues that the claims he asserts arose off-reservation, while Huber argues the opposite. To resolve the jurisdictional issue presented here, we see no need for binary analysis of where the claims arose. Under the Williams test, “ ‘[a]s the activity in question moves off the reservation the state’s governmental and regulatory interest increases dramatically, and federal protectiveness of Indian sovereignty lessens.’ ” (Begay v. Roberts (Ariz.Ct.App. 1990) 807 P.2d 1111, 1115 (Begay); see Smith Plumbing Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (Ariz. 1986) 720 P.2d 499 (Smith) [“[T]he Tribe’s reaching out outside the confines of the reservation to engage in commercial activity—without the concomitant reaching in by non-Indians—makes this a proper instance of nondiscriminatory adjudication of a contract claim by the courts of this state.”].) Because so much of Huber’s activity was directed to off-reservation business, this case, in our view, comfortably aligns with such cases as Anderson, Begay and Smith, where the extent of the off-reservation conduct at issue tipped the scale in favor of exercising state court jurisdiction.
Applying Williams to the facts presented on this record, the exercise of jurisdiction here does not infringe tribal sovereignty. The case implicates no issues of tribal self-governance, tribal membership, ownership of any tribe member’s real property, or domestic relations among tribe members. Huber’s business is located on the Wiyot reservation, but all the claims at issue are directed to her sales of contraband cigarettes to non-members of the Wiyot tribe, both at the retail level (based on promotions directed to off-reservation customers enticing them to visit her on-reservation business) and at the wholesale level (based on deliveries by truck off the reservation to other tribes). While these claims involve a Native American residing and doing business in Indian country, they cannot be said to have arisen entirely there. Nor does the Wiyot tribe have a court system that might be undermined by a California court’s assertion of jurisdiction involving a Wiyot tribe member and a business she operates on Wiyot tribal lands. Unlike the situation in Williams with Navajos in Arizona, there has never been any disclaimer by the state of California of any aspect of its jurisdiction over Indian country within the territorial boundaries of this state.
“The relation between the Indians and the states has by no means remained constant since the days of John Marshall.” (Organized Village of Kake v. Egan (1962) 369 U.S. 60, 71 (Village of Kake).) Over the many years since that time, “Congress has to a substantial degree opened the doors of reservations to state laws” (id. at p. 74) to such a degree that “ ‘[o]rdinarily,’ ... ‘an Indian reservation is considered part of the territory of the State.’ ” (Nevada v. Hicks (2001) 533 U.S. 353, 361–362; see also Village of Kake, supra, at p. 72; Acosta v. County of San Diego (1954) 126 Cal.App.2d 455, 463.) Although as of the early 1960s, it was still true that the “[d]ecisions of [the United States Supreme Court were] few as to the power of the states when not granted Congressional authority to regulate matters affecting Indians” (Village of Kake, supra, at p. 74), a substantial body of high court case law has now developed concerning when, in the absence of an express congressional grant of power, state law may be applied to reservation Indians.
Bracker, supra, 448 U.S. 136 summed up an area of law in which Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes, Etc. (1976) 465 U.S. 463 (Moe), Washington v. Confederated Tribes of Colville (1980) 447 U.S. 134 (Colville), and Department of Taxation and Finance of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc. (1994) 512 U.S. 61 (Milhelm)—each involving cigarette sales on Indian reservations and the extent to which state taxation and regulation schemes may be applied to those sales—are leading decisions. Thus, the parties rightly devote a great deal of attention to these three cases in their briefs. Although ultimately disagreeing about how the Moe-Colville-Milhelm line of precedent should be applied here, they largely agree about what each case held.
Citing cases barring states from directly taxing Indian-owned property or income earned by Indians on a reservation, the district court held Montana could not apply its tax on vehicles, its vendor licensing scheme, or its cigarette taxing scheme, with one significant exception: Montana “may require a pre-collection of the tax imposed by law upon the non-Indian purchaser of the cigarettes.” (Moe, supra, 425 U.S. at pp. 468–469.) The high court affirmed, and the last element of its opinion—upholding the requirement of pre-collection of excise tax owed by non-tribal purchasers of cigarettes (id. at pp. 481–483)—is the anchor for the later decisions in Colville, supra, 447 U.S. 134 and Milhelm, supra, 512 U.S. 61 building on it.
The court reversed, extending Moe and Colville with the following explanation: “The specific kind of state tax obligation that New York’s regulations are designed to enforce—which falls on non-Indian purchasers of goods that are merely retailed on a reservation—stands on a markedly different footing from a tax imposed directly on Indian traders, on enrolled tribal members or tribal organizations, or on ‘value generated on the reservation by activities involving the Tribes,’ Colville, 447 U.S., at 156–157. Moe [and] Colville ... make clear that the States have a valid interest in ensuring compliance with lawful taxes that might easily be evaded through purchases of tax-exempt cigarettes on reservations; that interest outweighs tribes’ modest interest in offering a tax exemption to customers who would ordinarily shop elsewhere. The ‘balance of state, federal, and tribal interests,’ [citation], in this area thus leaves more room for state regulation than in others. In particular, these cases have decided that States may impose on reservation retailers minimal burdens reasonably tailored to the collection of valid taxes from non-Indians.
Arguing for preemption, Huber emphasizes that this case involves solely on-reservation conduct among Indians, and, to the extent her operations extended beyond the border of the Table Bluff Rancheria, her business was with other tribes on other reservations. In her account of the facts, all she did was make wholesale deliveries to other tribes on their reservations “as a courtesy,” while contractually taking and accepting every order at the only store location she had, in her house on the Table Bluff Rancheria. She insists the trial court made no finding that she conducted business off-reservation. What the trial court actually found, she says, is that her business involved extensive “off-reservation contacts,” a concept she contends might be relevant to an issue of personal jurisdiction, but that has no legal significance here.
Huber relies heavily on our Supreme Court’s decision in People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 509, 520 (Naegele), a case involving an attempt by the California Department of Transportation to use California’s Outdoor Advertising Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 5200 et seq.) to regulate billboard signage on an Indian reservation that was visible from a state highway running through the reservation. (Naegele, at pp. 513–514.) The Naegele court found this enforcement effort preempted. (Id. at p. 522.) If “off-reservation safety and aesthetic effects were insufficient to justify state regulation ...” of on-reservation activities in Naegele, Huber argues, the off-reservation effects relied upon by the trial court are insufficient to avoid preemption here as well. This argument misses the thrust of the analysis in Naegele, where there was a detailed federal statutory scheme and the court found Congress did not intend to permit state regulation of billboards on Indian reservations. (Id. at pp. 515, 522.) The opinion thus turned on principles of federal obstacle preemption. (Id. at p. 522; see Viva! Internat. Voice for Animals v. Adidas Promotional Retail Operations, Inc. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 929, 935–936 [summarizing types of federal preemption; “obstacle preemption arises when ‘ “under the circumstances of [a] particular case, [the challenged state law] stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress” ’ ”].) There is no pervasive federal statutory scheme here.
All in all, we conclude that the Attorney General has the better of the argument on the issue of preemption. While we do not agree that Bracker preemption analysis may be short-circuited under Wagnon by characterizing the conduct involved at issue as off-reservation17—what we have here is a mix of on-reservation and off-reservation activity—we are nonetheless persuaded that the Bracker test tips in favor of the People on this record. In circumstances involving conduct that is partially on-reservation and partially off-reservation, “a State may validly assert authority over the activities of nonmembers on a reservation” if a balancing of interests under Bracker, supra, 448 U.S. 136 calls for it. (New Mexico II, supra, 462 U.S. at p. 331.) And in this balancing process, the “State’s regulatory interest will be particularly substantial if the State can point to off-reservation effects that necessitate State intervention.” (Id. at p. 336; see Rice, supra, 463 U.S. at p. 724 [“[Tribe member]’s distribution of liquor has a significant impact beyond the limits of the Pala Reservation. The state has an unquestionable interest in the liquor traffic that occurs within its borders, and this interest is independent of the authority conferred on the States by the Twenty-first Amendment”].)18 Here in particular, Moe, Colville, and Milhelm, as cigarette sales cases, provide the framework for the appropriate balancing analysis.
A key teaching of Moe, Colville, and Milhelm is that the high court views the issue of state regulation of cigarette sales on Native American reservations through an economic lens, looking not only at the cost advantages of selling noncomplying cigarettes, but to the incentives to lawbreaking that such sales create and the impact of upstream purchasing in the wholesale market for illicit cigarettes. (Moe, supra, 425 U.S. at pp. 481–483; Colville, supra, 447 U.S. at pp. 154–155; Milhelm, supra, 512 U.S. at pp. 73–76.) Looking at this case in the same way, Huber’s cigarette sales on the Table Bluff Rancheria in violation of the UCL, the Directory Act and the Fire Safety Act were no different in kind from the sales of non-tax stamped cigarettes at issue in Moe, Colville, and Milhelm; by flouting those statutes, she gained a cost advantage over retail sellers who bought at wholesale from complying manufacturers. Indeed, that cost advantage appears to have been the foundation of her enterprise, serving as an inducement to nonmembers to visit the Table Bluff Rancheria to avail themselves of prices made possible by this cost advantage, and creating a downstream market for wholesalers who distribute noncompliant cigarettes.
Huber argues that Moe, Colville, and Milhelm are merely “tax” cases that have no application outside the “special area of State taxation.” (See California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians (1987) 480 U.S. 202, 215, fn. 17.) We are not persuaded. What the phrase “special area” of taxation refers to is the rule that enrolled members of Native American tribes are exempt from state taxation. (McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission (1973) 411 U.S. 164, 171 (McClanahan).) Huber overlooks the fact that in Moe the court departs from this “special area,” and it does so because in that case the state law obligation the Native American smokeshops attacked (precollection of excise taxes) was not a tax at all, but rather was an incidental tax enforcement measure directed at ensuring collection from nonmembers (Moe, supra, 425 U.S. at pp. 481–483); the same was true in Colville (precollection and recordkeeping requirements on retailers) (Colville, supra, 447 U.S. at pp. 159–160); and in Milhelm (recordkeeping requirements and quantity restrictions on wholesalers) (Milhelm, supra, 512 U.S. at pp. 64–67, 73–76). Thus, we reject Huber’s argument that Moe, Colville, and Milhelm may be cast aside as oddball tax cases having no significance outside the specialized arena of taxation. Indeed, we view this trio of cases as integral to the entire body of Indian preemption law that has evolved over the last 50 years.
The trial court correctly concluded that the balance of federal, tribal, and state interests weighs in favor of California.19 Huber points to no federal interest, expressed by statute or regulation, in promoting reservation sales of cigarettes, and makes no claim that Congress, by statute or regulation, delegated to the Wiyots some form of authority that might oust the authority of the state in this area. To the extent the Wiyot Tribe, independently, has an interest in carving out a domain for its members in the cigarette sales business—Ordinance No. 01-10 appears to evidence just such an interest—the holding in Colville tells us that does not matter, absent a direct conflict. Huber insists that there is such a conflict, and that it is irreconcilable, but we do not agree. None of the California statutes the Attorney General seeks to enforce in this case blocks Huber outright from engaging in that which Ordinance No. 01-10 licenses her to do. Nothing in these statutes prevents her from selling tobacco products on any basis Ordinance No. 01-10 permits, solely to members of the Wiyot tribe, and solely on the Table Bluff Rancheria. California did not “impose” added burdens on her. Rather, by her choice of business strategy, she elected a path that triggered compliance obligations beyond those required by Ordinance No. 01-10.
Huber argues that, by obtaining an injunction, which carries with it the threat of contempt, the enforcement steps the Attorney General has taken here—causing the shutdown of her business—go far beyond the “minimal” burdens the Moe, Colville, and Milhelm courts approved. We cannot agree. The burden of complying with the Directory Act and the Fire Safety Act, as the Attorney General points out, falls on manufacturers. Huber’s only “burden,” if it can even be called that, is to choose product sourcing from manufacturers who comply with those statutes. Huber points out that the court’s injunction left her no choice but to shutter her business, but if that is the case the decision to close her business rather than offer cigarettes that comply with California law was her election, apparently looking at the economics of continued operation in compliance with state law. Colville is quite clear that the burden was on her to show that enforcement of the Directory Act and the Fire Safety Act against her, directly and through the UCL, is “not reasonably necessary as a means of preventing fraudulent transactions.” (Colville, supra, 447 U.S. at p. 160.) She failed to do so.
Putting aside the overstatement—the People make no attempt to enforce any laws against the Wiyot tribe itself—we are not persuaded that this case presents the “invasive” threat to “tribal law and policy” that Huber decries. She has pointed to no on-reservation enforcement activity of any kind, at least not so far. In Colville, the high court upheld the State of Washington’s power to seize illegal cigarettes by off-reservation interdiction but saw no need to address whether the state had power to “enter onto the reservations, seize stocks of cigarettes which are intended for sale to nonmembers, and sell those stocks in order to obtain payment of the taxes due.” (Colville, supra, 447 U.S. at p. 162.) The Court held the question of on-reservation seizure and sale was not presented for decision, characterizing it as “considerably different from” the issue of off-reservation interdiction. (Ibid.) We, too, see no need to address the question of on-reservation enforcement. And we decline to speculate about what issues might arise in hypothetical future circumstances. Although Nevada v. Hicks, supra, 533 U.S. 353, which involved the on-reservation search of a tribe member’s residence in a criminal investigation for violation of a game conservation statute (id. at pp. 355–356), can be read to suggest that on-reservation enforcement might be permissible where the activity involved presents some risk of harm to state citizens off the reservation, it is premature to apply that case here, since any issue raised by on-reservation enforcement is not yet ripe for decision, and on that ground, we need not address it. All we need say at this point is that, to the extent enforcement occurs off-reservation, the Wiyot right to self-governance is not implicated.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
Federally protected territory in California falling within the federal definition of “Indian country” has a unique history that differs in some respects from the history of federally protected Indian lands in other states, where in many cases treaties with tribes determined the boundaries of tribal territory. (See Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law (2012 ed.) § 3.04[a], p. 185 (Cohen).) Early in the 20th century, the United States sought to improve “the landless, homeless or penurious state of many California Indians” by purchasing numerous small tracts of land known as “ ‘[r]ancherias.’ ” (Williams v. Gover (9th Cir. 2007) 490 F.3d 785, 787.) The United States holds these rancheria lands in trust for resident Native Americans, controlling the land pursuant to a “special fiduciary duty owed by the United States to the Indian people.” (Table Bluff Band of Indians v. Andrus (N.D.Cal. 1981) 532 F.Supp. 255, 258.) A federal statute passed in 1958 known as the California Rancheria Act (Pub.L. No. 85-671 (Aug. 18, 1958) 72 Stat. 619-621), amended in 1964 (Pub.L. No. 88-419 (Aug. 11, 1964) 78 Stat. 390-391) (the Rancheria Act) established a process for terminating the trust relationship between the United States and Native Americans residing on 41 enumerated California rancherias and reservations. (Table Bluff, at p. 258.) A plan of termination for the Table Bluff Rancheria was prepared under the Rancheria Act, but because federal authorities failed to carry out various prerequisites to termination, the plan never took effect. (Id. at p. 259.) Throughout this opinion, we will occasionally use the term “reservation,” equating it with rancheria, since there is no dispute that the Table Bluff Rancheria qualifies as “Indian country,” and since many of the pertinent United States Supreme Court cases arose in states where tribes live on reservations.
See Annotation, Validity, Construction, Application, and Effect of Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) Between Tobacco Companies and Various States, and State Statutes Implementing Agreement; Use and Distribution of MSA Proceeds (2007) 25 A.L.R.6th 435, section 2 (summarizing mechanics of MSA and state statutes implementing its provisions).
There is no standalone cause of action for violation of the Tax Stamp Act.
“California..............................All Indian country within the State.
Conference of Western Attorneys General, American Indian Law Deskbook (May 2018), Nonstatutory Adjudicatory Jurisdiction § 6:11.
Langdeau v. Langdeau (S.D. 2008) 751 N.W.2d 722, 730 (“the purpose [of] the [Williams] [t]est is to protect tribal sovereignty in the realm of disputes involving Indians that take place entirely on a reservation” (original italics)); Roe v. Doe (N.D. 2002) 649 N.W.2d 566, 578–579 (Williams prohibits state court jurisdiction only for claims involving conduct on a reservation; collecting cases).
Compare C’Hair, supra, 357 P.3d at page 740 (state court had jurisdiction over personal injury claim brought by nonmember against tribal member with respect to on-reservation accident on state highway) with Hinkle v. Abeita (N.M.Ct.App. 2012) 283 P.3d 877, 878, 880 (state court lacked jurisdiction over personal injury suit by non-Indian against tribal member arising from on-reservation accident on state highway).
Healy Lake Village v. Mt. McKinley Bank (Alaska 2014) 322 P.3d 866, 875 (dismissal affirmed where issues presented would “require the state court to apply tribal law to determine the outcome of a tribal election dispute and issues of tribal membership” and thus would ignore precedent “emphasiz[ing] the need to respect tribal self-governance”).
Gustafson v. Estate of Poitra (N.D. 2011) 800 N.W.2d 842, 846–848 (declining to exercise jurisdiction over property dispute brought by non-Indian against tribal member concerning Indian-owned real property located within reservation).
McKenzie County Social Service Bd. v. C.G. (N.D. 2001) 633 N.W.2d 157, 161 (declining to exercise jurisdiction over action seeking paternity and child support order for child conceived on reservation); see Montana v. United States (1981) 450 U.S. 544, 564 (“in addition to the power to punish tribal offenders, the Indian tribes retain their inherent power to determine tribal membership, to regulate domestic relations among members, and to prescribe rules of inheritance for members”).
Outsource Services Management, LLC v. Nooksack Business Corp. (Wash. 2014) 333 P.3d 380, 384 (upholding state court jurisdiction in contract suit against tribal business enterprise where contract contained consent to jurisdiction clause and explaining “[w]hile [enterprise] is correct that parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction by agreement or consent, that does not mean we cannot take [its] consent into account when determining whether jurisdiction would infringe on the tribe’s right to self-rule”).
State ex rel. Vega v. Medina (Iowa 1996) 549 N.W.2d 507, 510 (exercising jurisdiction over action to establish tribe member’s paternity and support obligation with respect to child conceived off reservation).
New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe (1983) 462 U.S. 324, 331–332 (New Mexico II) (only “in exceptional circumstances [may] a State ... assert jurisdiction over the on-reservation activities of tribal members”).
Wagnon involved an effort by the State of Kansas to impose a tax on motor fuel that was ultimately delivered to a gas station owned and operated by a Native American tribe on its reservation. (Wagnon, supra, 546 U.S. at pp. 99–101.) Because the Court was able to pinpoint exactly where and on whom the legal incidence of the tax fell—by state statute, the tax was imposed on the non-Indian distributor of gas, off-reservation—it was possible to say, in a binary way, that the case involved wholly off-reservation activity, so no weighing of interests was needed and the state’s power to tax was not preempted. (Id. at pp. 102–105.) This case does not lend itself to that kind of binary analysis.
See Cohen, supra, § 6.02, p. 504 (“Where activities occur partially within and partially outside Indian country, and a substantial part of the activity takes place outside, courts have generally upheld nondiscriminatory applications of state jurisdiction”).
Huber argues that nothing in the trial court’s order granting the permanent injunction or in the underlying summary adjudication order indicates that it actually engaged in the required weighing of interests under Bracker. But she overlooks the procedural setting here. There was no trial in this case, and “courts have held that a statement of decision [under Code of Civil Procedure section 632] ordinarily is not required in connection with a ruling on a motion [citations], even if the motion involves an extensive evidentiary hearing.” (In re Marriage of Fong (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 278, 294, fn. omitted.) Even assuming the importance of the issues at stake might have entitled her to such a statement (Lien v. Lucky United Properties Investment, Inc. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 620, 624), there is no indication in the record that she requested one, much less followed the necessary procedures to frame issues on which express findings were required in such a statement. (Thompson v. Asimos (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 970, 981–984; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 632, 634; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1590(d)–(g).) As a result, we imply all findings necessary to uphold the orders under review so long as they are supported by substantial evidence, of which there is plenty in this record to support a balancing of interests under Bracker in favor of the People.

References: § 30161
 § 30165
 § 14951
 § 1162
 v. 
 § 1360
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 5200
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6
 v. 
 v.