1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9

10 BEAR RIVER BAND OF ROHNERVILLE

RANCHERIA,

11 No. C 20-05574 WHA Plaintiff, 12

v.

13 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and Gavin MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE 14 Newsom in his official capacity as Governor of California, 15 Defendants. 16

17 Plaintiff Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, a federally recognized Indian Tribe 18 located in Humboldt County within the Northern District of California, brought this action 19 against the State of California and Gavin Newsom in his official capacity as the Governor of 20 California, alleging a failure to negotiate in good faith under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 21 Act (“IGRA”). Pursuant to Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code, defendants 22 move to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 23 California where related actions brought by other Indian Tribes are pending. For the reasons 24 stated herein, defendants’ motion is GRANTED. 25 In 1999, plaintiff and many other federally recognized Indian Tribes negotiated similar 26 gaming license compacts with the State of California. Those compacts expire in December 27 2020 with automatic extensions to June 2022 unless further compacts are agreed to. In 2014, 1 negotiate with California, as a group, for renewed class III gaming compacts. In 2019, after 2 years of failed negotiations, five of the CTSC tribes withdrew and jointly filed suit against 3 defendants, alleging they violated the IGRA for failing to negotiate in good faith. See Chicken 4 Ranch Rancheria v. State of California, No. 1:19-cv-00024 (E.D. Cal.) (Judge Anthony W. 5 Ishii). Meanwhile, the negotiations between CTSC and California continued. 6 Then, in July 2020, four other tribes, including plaintiff, withdrew from CTSC. Those 7 tribes then individually made compact offers to the state, which the state rejected. In August 8 2020, therefore, plaintiff and the other three tribes filed suits against defendants, also alleging a 9 failure to negotiate in good faith under the IGRA. All four tribes are represented by the same 10 counsel. While three of these tribes filed their suits in the Eastern District of California, 11 plaintiff brought this related action in this district. 12 All of the actions in the Eastern District have now been related and assigned to Judge 13 Anthony Ishii based on a finding that they “in part, involve the same transaction or event and 14 involve similar questions of fact and law” (Dkt. No. 21 at 2). Judge Ishii’s unpublished order 15 relating the Eastern District actions was entered after state defendants submitted their reply 16 brief. Accordingly, state defendants bring a motion for leave of court to file their request for 17 judicial notice of that order (Dkt. No. 20). Plaintiff does not oppose. Defendants’ motion is 18 thus GRANTED. So, too, is their request for judicial notice of Judge’s Ishii order relating said 19 actions. See FRE 201(b); see also Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 20 2001) (a court may take judicial notice of “matters of public record.”). 21 Defendants argue that this action should be transferred to the Eastern District and, too, be 22 assigned to Judge Ishii because doing so will advance judicial economy, provide a more 23 convenient forum for the parties, and avoid the risk of inconsistent rulings. This order agrees. 24 A district court may transfer an action to another district “[f]or the convenience of the 25 parties and witnesses” and “in the interest of justice” if original venue would have been proper 26 in that district. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Under this Section, a district court has discretion “to 27 adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of 1 convenience and fairness.’ ” Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (citation 2 omitted). 3 Here, it is undisputed that this action could have originally been brought in the Eastern 4 District because state defendants are located in Sacramento. Moreover, the convenience of the 5 witnesses favors neither party, as bad-faith actions under the IGRA are adjudicated based on 6 the “record of negotiations[.]” See Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of Rincon 7 Reservation v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). Indeed, neither party 8 has identified any witnesses in this action. 9 But the other factors all favor transfer. For one thing, transferring this action to the 10 Eastern District to be related to the other tribes’ suits will provide a more convenient forum for 11 all the parties. State defendants are already defending against the same allegations by other 12 tribes in that district. Given that plaintiff is represented by the same counsel as three of the 13 other tribes in the Eastern District, litigating this action there, as a practical matter, is also more 14 convenient for plaintiff notwithstanding that plaintiff itself is located in this district. 15 Crucially, the “interest of justice” heavily favor transfer. Having one judge hear all these 16 related actions will lead to judicial economy and efficiency, assure consistent rulings and 17 reasoned reconciliation of slight difference amongst these actions, and allow for a single 18 settlement judge or mediator to affect comparatively equitable settlements amongst the various 19 tribes. All these IGRA actions involve, in large part, the years long records of negotiations 20 between CTSC and the state, which have already been compiled in front of Judge Ishii in 21 Chicken Ranch. Given that cross-motions for summary judgment have already been filed and 22 heard in Chicken Ranch, Judge Ishii is already familiar with the overlapping facts and legal 23 issues. Consequently, transferring this action so that it can be related and assigned to Judge 24 Ishii will expedite this litigation. 25 Indeed, plaintiff concedes as much. Rather, plaintiff’s concern is that there will be no 26 guarantee that its action will be assigned to Judge Ishii upon transfer to the Eastern District. 27 Given that all the newly brought actions there have now been ordered related to Chicken Ranch 1 and reassigned to Judge Ishii, however, this action, too, will in all likelihood be related and 2 assigned to him as well. 3 In its opposition, plaintiff mainly argues that deference must be shown to its choice of 4 forum. True, plaintiff has decided to sue in its home forum and that choice requires us to show 5 deference. But, the considerations discussed above, particularly during a pandemic, justify 6 transfer and outweigh that deference. The forum selection clause in plaintiff's 1999 compact, 7 stating that plaintiff “may” bring suit in the district where its gaming facility is located does not 8 alter this conclusion (Opp. 5). The clause is merely permissive, not mandatory. 9 For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to change venue is GRANTED. The clerk 10 shall transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 11 California. Finding oral argument unnecessary, the October 29 hearing is hereby VACATED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

|| Dated: October 26, 2020.

16 [A - [> bene 5 LIAM ALSUP

NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28