Bank of The Sierra v. Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, et al

Filing 19

ORDER Accelerating Briefing Schedule Re Motion to Vacate Prior Order Based on Failure to Join an Indispensable Party, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/19/2014. (Defendant McDonald Faction will file any opposition to Defendant Unification Council's motion by November 26, 2014.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10

BANK OF THE SIERRA, a California
corporation,

1:14-cv-01044-AWI-SAB

11
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

15
16
17
18
19

v.
PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THE
CHUKCHANSI INDIANS, a federally
recognized Indian tribe, and
CHUKCHANSI ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a wholly
owned economic arm of the Tribe,

ORDER ACCELERATING
BRIEFING SCHEDULE RE
MOTION TO VACATE PRIOR
ORDER BASED ON FAILURE TO
JOIN AN INDISPENSABLE
PARTY
(Doc. 15)

Defendants.
__________________________________/

20
21

Plaintiff, Bank of the Sierra (“Plaintiff”), named the Picayune Rancheria of the

22

Chukchansi Indians (“the Tribe”) and the Economic Development Authority that it operates as

23

defendants in an action (1) contesting the jurisdiction of the “Tribal Court of the Picayune

24

Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians” (“Tribal Court”) to enter a binding order against Plaintiff; (2)

25
26
27

seeking to enjoin all Defendants from prosecuting an action against Plaintiff in the Tribal Court;
and interpleading funds the amount of $392,407.01. Doc. 1. On October 27, 2014, this Court
dismissed the action based on the representations by counsel for Plaintiff and counsel, Lester

28
1

1 Marston, purporting to represent “Defendant Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians” (which
2 this Court now believes to represent the “McDonald Faction”1) that the parties had come to an
3 agreement. Doc. 14. This Court’s order required only that the case be dismissed, the interpled
4 funds be returned to Plaintiff, and each party bear its own costs and fees. Doc. 14. On November
5 7, 2014, a second party purporting to represent the Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians
6 (which refers to itself as the “Unification Council”2) filed a motion to intervene, re-open the
7 case, vacate this Court’s prior order dismissing the case (Doc. 14), then dismiss pursuant to
8 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 for failure to join an indispensable party.
The Unification Council’s motion is set for December 15, 2014. In light of the uncertain

9

10 status of Tribal leadership and the resulting potential loss of Tribal funds, this Court will
11 accelerate the briefing schedule as follows: Defendant McDonald Faction will file any opposition
12 to Defendant Unification Council’s motion by November 26, 2014.
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15 Dated: November 19, 2014

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Reference to this party as McDonald Faction is not intended as any indication of legitimacy or lack thereof; it is
simply an efficient party designation that is necessary due to the lack of clarity as to which party actually represents
the Tribe.
2
The Unification Council was established on August 24, 2014 and is composed of Reggie Lewis, Nancy Ayala,
Chance Alberta, Tracey Hopkins, Karen Wynn, and Nokomis Hernandez.

2