Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enterprise Rancheria v. California

Good Law
163 F. Supp. 3d 769·2016 WL 632782·2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19330
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 2016No. 2:14-cv-01939-TLN-CKDCalifornia8,924 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nunley, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The matter is before the Court on cross motions for judgment on the pleadings by Plaintiff the Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe (hereinafter “Plaintiff’) and Defendant the State of California (hereinafter “Defendant”). (ECF Nos. 14, 17.) The Court has carefully considered the factual and legal issues presented in the parties’ filings, and the arguments raised in the amicus brief submitted by the California legislature (ECF No. 19). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings, and DENIES Defendant’s motion.

I. Summary of the Issues

Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (“IGRA”), an Indian tribe seeking to conduct casino-style gaming on Indian land must request that the state enter into good faith negotiations to conclude a gaming compact. 25 U.S.C. § 2710 (d)(3). Under California law, the governor is tasked with negotiating a compact, and the legislature is tasked with ratifying it. Cal. Const., Art. IV, § 19(f). In this case, Plaintiff negotiated and signed a compact (the “Compact”) with Governor Jerry Brown in 2012. However, the legislature essentially took no further action and did not hold a vote on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.