State of Idaho v. Coeur d' Alene Tribe

Filing 72

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Stay the Proceedings 67 is GRANTED. This litigation is STAYED pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of Defendant's appeal to the Court's September 5, 2014 Memorandum Decision and Order. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
STATE OF IDAHO, a sovereign State of
the United States

Case No. 2:14-cv-00170-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
COEUR D’ALENE TRIBE, a federally
recognized Indian tribe
Defendant.

INTRODUCTION
The Court has before it Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Proceedings. Dkt. 67. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion, staying this litigation until a
decision on appeal has been issued and the case remanded to this Court.
BACKGROUND
In early May 2014, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe began conducting Texas Hold’em
tournaments at the Coeur d’Alene Casino. Shortly after, the State of Idaho brought this
action seeking to enjoin the Tribe from holding these tournaments, claiming that poker is
a prohibited form of gambling in Idaho, and that the Tribe is in violation of the parties’

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

Class III Gaming Compact by conducting these poker tournaments. Complt. ¶¶ 17-22,
Dkt. 1. On September 5, 2014, the Court issued a Preliminary Injunction and denied
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper
venue. September 5, 2014 Memorandum Decision and Order, Dkt. 40. The Tribe now
moves to stay the litigation pending resolution of the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. Dkt 67.
ANALYSIS
It is well established that an appeal from an interlocutory order does not divest the
trial court of jurisdiction to continue with other phases of the case. Plotkin v. Pac. Tel. &
Tel. Co., 688 F.2d 1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 1982). However, courts possess substantial
inherent powers to control and manage their dockets, which include the power to stay
proceedings where the court finds it would best serve the economy and time of the court
and parties. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). The resolution of the
Tribe's motion to stay is, therefore, “an exercise of judicial discretion” that is “dependent
upon the circumstances of the particular case.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009)
(citations omitted).
Generally, the court should consider four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant
has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the
applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will
substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public
interest lies.” Leiva-Perez v. Holder, 640 F.3d 962, 964 (2011) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S.
at 434). These four factors should be examined on a flexible “continuum,” which is

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

“essentially the same as the ‘sliding scale’ approach” applied to requests for preliminary
injunctions. Leiva-Perez, 640 F.3d at 964–66.
Although usually a movant must show a substantial case for relief on the merits,
this case presents a unique situation. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit will review whether
Congress conferred subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute to the federal courts,
which necessarily requires the determination of whether the Texas Hold’em tournaments
qualify as Class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). However,
the question of whether Texas Hold’em tournaments qualify as Class III gaming under
the IGRA is also determinative of the merits of the underlying action. See September 18,
2014 Memorandum Decision and Order at 7, Dkt. 57 (explaining that in this particular
case, deciding jurisdiction would basically require a decision on the merits). Whether or
not the movant succeeds on appeal, the Ninth Circuit’s determination of the jurisdictional
issue will necessarily resolve the merits of the case. Further action in the trial court may
well be unnecessary.
Additionally, both parties are likely to suffer unnecessary litigation expenses
absent a stay. The State argued that it would be injured by the issuance of a stay were the
Court to grant the Tribe’s motion to increase security. However, the Court denied the
motion to increase security, rendering the argument moot. See December 17, 2014
Memorandum Decision and Order.
Finally, regarding the public interest, the Court finds Rule 1 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure instructive. Rule 1’s guiding premise is that the rules “should be

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of
every action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. It needs no citation of authority to recognize that
litigation is expensive. The Supreme Court has long mandated that trial courts should
resolve civil matters fairly but without undue cost. Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370
U.S. 294, 306 (1962). This directive is echoed by Rule 26, which instructs the court to
balance the expense of discovery against its likely benefit. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(B)(2)(iii). These policies support a stay of litigation in this matter.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Proceedings (Dkt. 67) is
GRANTED. This litigation is STAYED pending the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of
Defendant’s appeal to the Court’s September 5, 2014 Memorandum Decision and Order.
DATED: December 17, 2014

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4