Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians v. State of California, et al

Filing 30

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 7/27/11 ORDERING that this action is hereby dismissed with prejudice, and that each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys fees incurred herein. CASE CLOSED.(Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Robert A. Rosette (CA SBN 224437)
Nicole St. Germain (CA SBN 261356)
ROSETTE, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
193 Blue Ravine Rd., Suite 255
Folsom, California 95630
[phone] (Office)
[phone] (Fax)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

Case No.: 2:09-CV-02263 JAM KJN

TUOLUMNE BAND OF ME-WUK
INDIANS, a federally-recognized Indian
Tribe,

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER
FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

14
15

Plaintiff,

16

vs.

17

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA
GAMBLING CONTROL COMMISSION, an
agency of the State of California; and
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, as
Governor of the State of California;

18
19
20

Judge:

The Honorable John A.
Mendez

Trial Date: None Set
Action Filed: August 14, 2009

Defendants.

21
22
23
24

For the reasons stated herein, the parties to this action, by and through their attorneys of
record, hereby stipulate to dismissal with prejudice under the following terms.
JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

25

Plaintiff Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe

26

(“Tribe”), and Defendants, the State of California, the California Gambling Control Commission

27

(“Commission”), and the Governor of the State of California (collectively “State Defendants”),

28
Rosette, LLP
Attorneys at Law
193 Blue Ravine Road
Suite 255
Folsom, California 95630

1

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-02263

JOINT STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1

being all the parties who have appeared herein, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

2

41(a)(1)(A)(ii), by and through their respective counsel of record, jointly stipulate as follows:

3

In this action the Tribe challenges the Commission’s interpretation of particular provisions

4

of the class III Tribal-State gaming compact between the Tribe and the State (“Compact”). The

5

Compact at issue is a form compact that the State entered into with numerous tribes in California.

6

As determined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians of

7

the Colusa Indian Community v. California, 618 F.3d 1066 (9th Cir. 2010) (Colusa), the

8

statewide Gaming Device license pool provided by § 4.3.2.2(a)(1) of the Compact consists of

9

40,201 licenses. By virtue of the finality of the Colusa decision, the State is now bound by the

10

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ interpretation of Compact § 4.3.2.2(a)(1) as to the Tribe’s

11

Compact, and the Tribe no longer has a need for declaratory relief regarding the meaning of

12

Compact § 4.3.2.2(a)(1). Thus, the Tribe’s request for declaratory judgment as to its First Claim

13

for Relief is unnecessary.

14

The Tribe is presently entitled to draw future Gaming Device licenses pursuant to the

15

terms of Compact § 4.3.2.2, as a tier (iii) tribe, and will be entitled to draw in tier (iii) until the

16

Tribe has drawn an additional five hundred fifty (550) licenses at tier (iii).1 The Tribe may

17

remain in any applicable tier until it has drawn the maximum number of licenses authorized by

18

that tier. Accordingly, the Tribe no longer has a need for declaratory judgment relief concerning

19

the Commission’s interpretation of Compact § 4.3.2.2(a)(3) and method of assigning draw tier

20

rankings, and its request for declaratory judgment as to its Second Claim for Relief is moot.

21

The Tribe may notify the Commission that it wishes to acquire additional Gaming Device

22

licenses according to the terms of the Compact, including Compact § 4.3.2.2(a)(3)(vi). The

23

Commission shall then initiate and conduct the Gaming Device license draw process in

24

accordance with the terms of the Compact. Accordingly, the Tribe no longer has a need for the

25

injunctive relief sought in paragraph 2 of its prayer.2

26

1

27
28
Rosette, LLP
Attorneys at Law
193 Blue Ravine Road
Suite 255
Folsom, California 95630

Under the interpretation of Compact § 4.3.2.2(a)(3) sought by the Tribe in this action, the Tribe
has already acquired 200 of the 750 licenses that may be drawn in tier (iii), and therefore may
draw 550 additional licenses from that tier.
2
The prayer has two paragraphs numbered “2.” The reference herein is to the second paragraph
two.
2

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-02263

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

1

THEREFORE, the parties stipulate that good cause exists for the Court to dismiss this

2

action and all pending claims herein with prejudice. The parties shall be responsible for any and

3

all of their respective attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in connection with the

4

prosecution or defense of this action.

5
6

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

7
8

Dated: July 27, 2011

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
SARA J. DRAKE
Senior Assistant Attorney General

9
10
11

/s/ Neil D. Houston
NEIL D. HOUSTON
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for State Defendants

12
13
14
15
16

Dated: July 27, 2011

ROSETTE, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ROBERT A. ROSETTE

17
18

/s/ Robert A. Rosette
ROBERT A. ROSETTE
Attorneys for Plaintiff

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rosette, LLP
Attorneys at Law
193 Blue Ravine Road
Suite 255
Folsom, California 95630

3

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-02263

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

1
2
3

ORDER
The Court, having considered the Joint Stipulation and Order for Dismissal With
Prejudice, filed on July 26, 2011, and being satisfied that good cause therefor exists:

4
Now, therefore, it is hereby ordered that the action be and the same is hereby dismissed with
5
6

prejudice, and that each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys fees incurred herein.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

Dated: 7/27/2011

/s/ John A. Mendez____________
Honorable John A. Mendez
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rosette, LLP
Attorneys at Law
193 Blue Ravine Road
Suite 255
Folsom, California 95630

4

CASE NO. 2:09-CV-02263

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE