Robinson Rancheria of Pomo Indians of California v. Quitiquit et al

Filing 37

ORDER RE: NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR HEARING scheduled 2/21/12 at 2:00pm. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 2/16/2012. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/16/2012)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROBINSON RANCHERIA OF POMO
INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Northern District of California

ORDER RE: NOTICE OF QUESTIONS
FOR HEARING

v.
LUWANA QUITIQUIT, et al.,

12
United States District Court

Case No.: 11-cv 4348 YGR

Defendants.

13
14

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE

15

FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON FEBRUARY 21, 2012, AT

16

2:00 P.M.:

17

The Court has reviewed the parties’ papers and, thus, does not wish to hear the parties re-

18

argue matters addressed therein. If the parties intend to rely on authorities not cited in their briefs,

19

they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing counsel of these authorities reasonably in

20

advance of the hearing and to make copies available at the hearing. If the parties submit such

21

additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the citations to the authorities only, with

22

reference to pin cites and without argument or additional briefing. Cf. Civil L. R. 7-3(d). The

23

parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance on such authority.

24

The Court suggests that associates or of counsel attorneys who are working on this case be permitted

25

to address some or all of the Court’s questions contained herein.

26

The parties each shall have fifteen (15) minutes to address the following questions:

27

1.

28

With respect to the issue of this Court's subject matter jurisdiction to enforce these

tribal court judgments, do Wilson v Marchington, 127 F.3d 805 (9th Cir. 1997) and Plains

1

Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Co., 554 U.S. 316, 324, 128 S.Ct. 2709, 2716 -

2

2717 (2008) establish federal question jurisdiction or does the more recent decision in Miccosukee

3

Tribe of Indians of Florida v. Kraus-Anderson Construction Company, 607 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir.

4

2010), finding no federal question jurisdiction over an action filed purely to enforce the judgment,

5

control?
2.

6

The motion papers reference and rely upon a Declaration of Michelle Monlo, and

7

indicate that such a declaration was served with the motion papers on November 10, 2011.

8

However, the Court’s docket does not reflect that such a declaration was filed in this matter. Was the

9

declaration served and, regardless, should the Court consider the declaration as evidence in

10

connection with this motion?
3.

11

Do the parties agree that, assuming the Court has jurisdiction to enforce the tribal

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12

court judgments, the determination whether they should be so enforced is a matter of comity per

13

Wilson, supra?
4.

14

Does the Ninth Circuit’s statement in Wilson, supra, at 811 that “evidence . . . ‘that a

15

party was unable . . . to have access to appeal or review, would support a conclusion that the legal

16

system was one whose judgments are not entitled to recognition,’” standing alone, necessarily

17

require that the Court find that the judgments here are not enforceable under principles of comity?
5.

18

What efforts, if any, has Plaintiff made to enforce its judgment through tribal

19

authorities? What basis, if any, do Defendants have for failure to comply with the judgments thus

20

far?

21

6.

Does Plaintiff propose that, if the judgments are recognized here and entered as

22

judgments of the federal court, federal authorities would be authorized to enter onto tribal land to

23

enforce the judgments? If so, under what authority?

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 16, 2012
_________________________________________

26

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

27
28

2