Latham

Latham v. Gold Country Casino

Good Law
154 F. App'x 675
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 23, 2005No. 03-16524California403 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Harold and Norma Latham (collectively, the “Lathams”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their tort claims against Gold Country Casino and The Berry Creek Ranchería of Maidu Indians (the “Tribe”). The district court dismissed the Lathams’ complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We affirm the district court’s dismissal, but due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), an alternate ground supported by the record. See Jewel Cos. v. Pay Less Drug Stores Northwest, Inc., 741 F.2d 1555 , 1564-65 (9th Cir.1984).

A Tribal-State Compact formed under the Indian Gaming Regulation Act, 25 U.S.C. § 2701 , et seq., (the “IGRA”), such as the one entered into by the Tribe and the State of California, is “quite clearly ... a creation of federal law” and the “IGRA prescribes the permissible scope of the Compact! ].” Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1050, 1056 (9th Cir.1997). While the district court has jurisdiction to enforce the Compact’s terms as between the State and the Tribe, see id., without the Tribe’s express waiver…

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.