United States Ex Rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc. Clear Lake Indian Bingo Ltd. American Arbitration Association Herman Schner

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree that sanctions should not have been imposed against Robinson. In fact, Robinson should have prevailed below. Therefore, I dissent from all but the sanctions section of Judge Fernandez’s opinion.

Under California law, the disputed state court judgment is void and Robinson has the substantive right to have it set aside. In the California courts the procedure for accomplishing that result is to bring an action for a writ of prohibition. Moffat v. Moffat, 27 Cal.3d 645 , 612 P.2d 967, 972-74 , 165 Cal.Rptr. 877, 882-84 (Cal.1980). However, California’s procedural rules do not govern proceedings in the federal courts. Nor in the absence of any pending proceeding in the California courts does Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 U.S. 1 , 107 S.Ct. 1519 , 95 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987), dictate federal abstention solely in order to safeguard a judgment that the California courts themselves would regard as a nullity. Accordingly, I believe that the state court judgment does not bar the federal courts from reaching the merits of Robinson’s federal claim. Finally, because the plain language of the federal statutes that govern contracts with Indians…

Robinson Ranchería Citizens Council (Robinson) appeals from the district court’s dismissal of its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under 25 U.S.C. § 81 , which governs contracts between Indians and non-Indians relating to tribal lands. The district court dismissed Robinson’s complaint with prejudice, and when Robinson moved for reconsideration of the court’s order, the court imposed sanctions under Rule 11. Since a state court has now decided the claims Robins on placed before the district court, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of the action. We reverse the district court’s order imposing sanctions.

BACKGROUND

On August 30, 1986, Robinson, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and Borneo, Inc. entered into a written contract which obligated Borneo to finance, construct, and operate a bingo hall on Robinson’s tribal land. Legal title to tribal land is held in trust for Robinson by the United States. The agreement provided that Borneo was to receive eighty percent of net operating profits until its construction costs had been paid in full; after costs were recouped, Borneo’s draw was to fall to forty percent. Revenues not paid to Borneo were to be retained by…

971 F.2d 244 UNITED STATES ex rel. ROBINSON RANCHERIA CITIZENS COUNCIL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BORNEO, INC.; Clear Lake Indian Bingo Ltd.; American Arbitration Association; Herman Schner, Defendants-Appellees. No. 89-15930. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 6, 1991. Decided July 7, 1992. George Forman, Alexander & Karshmer, Berkeley, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant. Lawrence W. Chamblee, Iwasaki, Thomas & Sheffield, Los Angeles, Cal., and Louis Demas, Sacramento, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before: POOLE, REINHARDT and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge: 1 Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council (Robinson) appeals from the district court's dismissal of its claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under 25 U.S.C. § 81 , which governs contracts between Indians and non-Indians relating to tribal lands. The district court dismissed Robinson's complaint with prejudice, and when Robinson moved for reconsideration of the court's order, the court imposed sanctions under Rule 11. Since a state court has now decided the claims Robinson…