SPRAWLDEF et al v. City of Richmond et al

Filing 92

ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; VACATING BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE STATEMENTS AS TO EFFECT OF PENDENCY OF APPEAL by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers; denying 91 Stipulation. Brief statements of no more than 5 pages each filed by 11/26/2019. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SPRAWLDEF, ET AL.,
Petitioners,

8
vs.

9
10

CITY OF RICHMOND, ET AL.,
Respondents.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

CASE NO. 18-cv-03918-YGR
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST
FOR EXTENSION OF TIME; VACATING
BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE ON
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE
PLEADINGS; AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO
FILE STATEMENTS AS TO EFFECT OF
PENDENCY OF APPEAL
Dkt. No. 91

12
13

The Stipulated Request for Extension of Time on the Briefing Schedule for the Motion for

14

Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 91) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the briefing and

15

hearing schedule on the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Dkt. No. 87) is VACATED. The

16

Court seeks clarification on the parties’ positions as to the effect of the pending appeal on the

17

Court’s jurisdiction to hear the motion, for the reasons set forth more fully herein.

18

I.

19

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The petition in this matter was removed from state court on June 29, 2018, by Respondents

20

Mayor Tom Butt, City of Richmond, Richmond City Council (“the City”). The petition seeks to

21

challenge the April 12, 2018 entry of a stipulated judgment between the City and Upstream Point

22

Molate, LLC (‘Upstream’) and the Guidiville Rancheria of California (‘the Tribe’) in Guidiville

23

Rancheria of California et al v. United States of America et al, Northern District of California

24

Case No. 4:12-cv-01326. The City moved to dismiss the petition shortly after removal on the

25

grounds that no claim was stated under the Brown Act. With the Court poised to deny the motion

26

on the record at September 11, 2018 hearing, the City withdrew the motion to dismiss, opting

27

instead to file an answer on September 24, 2018. (Dkt. No. 23.)

28

On October 2, 2018, the Court issued a schedule for briefing on the merits of the petition

1

and on a schedule for petitioners to file a motion to amend the petition to name “Upstream Point

2

Molate, LLC [‘Upstream’] and the Guidiville Rancheria of California [‘the Tribe’] as interested

3

parties, without conceding that they are necessary parties or that the Tribe retains sovereign

4

immunity.” (Dkt. No. 26.) On October 18, 2018, the Court granted the administrative motion to

5

amend the petition and add Upstream and the Tribe as respondents. (Dkt. No. 28.)

6

On January 9, 2019, the Tribe filed a motion to dismiss the petition on grounds of

7

sovereign immunity of the Tribe and the Court’s inability to proceed on the remainder of the

8

litigation without the Tribe as a party. (Dkt. No. 45.) On January 16, 2019, the Tribe filed a

9

motion to stay briefing on the petition on the merits pending the Court’s decision on the Tribe’s

10

motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 49.)

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Thereafter, on January 29, 2019, Court denied the Tribe’s motion to stay the action

12

pending disposition of the Tribe’s motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 54). After having duly considered

13

the parties papers in support of and in opposition to the Tribe’s motion to dismiss, on June 19,

14

2019, the Court issued its order denying the motion on the grounds that the Tribe had waived its

15

tribal sovereign immunity. (Dkt. No. 58.) With the pleading motions concluded, the Court also

16

directed the parties to meet and confer on a proposed schedule for completing their briefing on the

17

merits of the petition, since the Tribe and Upstream had not yet filed a response on the merits.

18

(Dkt. No. 59.)

19

Five days later, on June 24, 2019, the Tribe filed a Notice of Appeal of the Court’s order

20

denying its motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 60.) In a status report filed June 27, 2019, the Tribe

21

asserted that the appeal divested the Court of jurisdiction to proceed on the merits. (Dkt. No. 61.)

22

Petitioners took no position on the effect of the appeal. (Id.) Consistent with the Tribe’s position

23

in the status report and Ninth Circuit authority on the matter, the Court concluded that it was

24

without jurisdiction to proceed on the merits of the petition and did not set a briefing schedule on

25

the merits of the petition. See Pistor v. Garcia, 791 F3d 1104, 1110 (9th Cir. 2015) (order

26

denying tribal sovereign immunity is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine);

27

Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Vaughn, 509 F3d 1085, 1089 (9th Cir. 2007)

28

(generally “[a] district court's denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final decision within the
2

1

meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291, [but] . . . an adverse decision . . . denying tribal sovereign immunity

2

as a complete defense to proceeding with the litigation” is considered a final decision for purposes

3

of appellate jurisdiction).

4

On July 30, 2019, petitioners filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking an order

5

“to preserve the status quo,” meaning to stay implementation of the underlying stipulated

6

judgment in the Guidiville Rancheria case until the appeal and the petition could be resolved.

7

(Dkt. No. 64.)

8
9

The City then filed an administrative motion on August 2, 2019 (Dkt. No. 69), seeking a
stay of the action until the Ninth Circuit issued an order on the Tribe’s pending appeal, arguing
that “the Court is divested of jurisdiction” due to the appeal. In the alternative, the City sought an

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

extension of time to respond to the preliminary injunction motion. (Id. at 1.) Petitioners opposed

12

the administrative motion on the grounds that, even though the Court was without jurisdiction to

13

consider the merits of the petition pending the Tribe’s appeal, “[t]he principal of exclusive

14

appellate jurisdiction is not absolute and the lower court’s jurisdiction to preserve the status quo

15

on appeal is well established,” citing Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Southwest

16

Marine Inc. (9th Cir. 2001) 242 F.3d 1163, 1166.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Agreeing with the petitioners on this point, the Court issued an order on August 8, 2019,
denying the motion as follows:
The Court having duly considered the administrative motion (Dkt. No. 69)
and opposition thereto, the administrative motion of respondents City of
Richmond, et al., to stay further briefing or consideration of petitioners’ pending
motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. No. 64) is DENIED.
The request, in the alternative, to delay filing of the City’s response to the
motion for preliminary injunction until September 17, 2019, is DENIED. The
City has not offered facts sufficient to establish good cause for a delay of this
length.
(Dkt. No. 74, emphasis supplied.)1 The Court also adjusted the briefing and hearing schedule on

24
25
26
27
28

1

The City’s motion for judgment on the pleadings incorrectly suggests that the City
requested a stay immediately after the Tribe filed its notice of appeal, rather than in direct
response to petitioners’ motion for preliminary injunction. (Dkt. No. 87 at ECF 7-8.) The Court’s
order denying the City’s motion was limited to the City’s request “to stay further briefing or
consideration of petitioners’ pending motion for preliminary injunction,” (Dkt. No. 74.) since
consideration of that injunctive relief was unaffected by the pendency of the appeal.
3

1

the pending motion for preliminary injunction. (Id.) The Court held a hearing on the motion for

2

preliminary injunction on September 10, 2019, at which time the petitioners agreed to withdraw

3

the motion without prejudice to re-setting it for a hearing after having an opportunity to participate

4

in a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. (Dkt. No. 78.)
In the related Guidiville Rancheria action, on November 12, 2019, the City, the Tribe, and

5
6

Upstream submitted a revised proposed judgment, which the Court has now entered. (See

7

Guidiville Rancheria of California et al v. United States of America et al, Northern District of

8

California Case No. 4:12-cv-01326, at Dkt. No. 410.)

9

II.

10

THE CITY’S PENDING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
On November 15, 2019, the City filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

the petition is resolved by the amended judgment in the Guidiville Rancheria action, and the

12

public hearing and open session vote of the City Council in which the revised settlement

13

agreement and proposed judgment was approved (Dkt. No. 87.) Respondent Upstream filed a

14

joinder in the motion. (Dkt. No. 89, 90.)

15
16
17

It appears to the Court, given the pendency of the Tribe’s appeal, that it lacks jurisdiction
to rule on the merits of the petition, including a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The City, Upstream, the petitioners, and specially appearing respondent the Tribe are

18

directed to file brief statements of no more than 5 pages each by November 26, 2019, setting

19

forth their respective positions on the effect of the Tribe’s pending appeal on the Court’s ability to

20

rule on the pending motion for judgment on the pleadings.

21

This terminates Docket No. 91.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: November 21, 2019
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
4