State of California v. PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF CHUKCHANSI INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, AKA Distributees, a…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF
CHUKCHANSI INDIANS OF
CALIFORNIA, AKA Distributees, a
Federally Recognized Indian Tribe,
Defendant-Appellant,
PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF
CHUKCHANSI INDIANS OF
CALIFORNIA, AKA New Tribal Council,
Federally Recognized Indian Tribe,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-15096
D.C. No.
1:14-cv-01593-LJO-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 10, 2018
San Francisco, California
FILED
JUN 05 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 4 --

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge, and EZRA,**
District Judge.
Defendant-Appellants, individual members of the Picayune Rancheria of
Chukchansi Indians of California Tribe (“the Distributees”), appeal the district
court’s entry of judgment and permanent injunction, which enjoined the Tribe and
its agents from certain conduct related to ensuring the health, safety, and welfare of
the public with respect to the Tribe’s operation of its Chukchansi Gold Resort and
Casino. The Distributees allege that the district court erroneously recognized a
faction of tribal members as the rightful tribal leadership, and failed to recognize
and defer to tribal court rulings regarding the makeup of the Tribal Council and its
election.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over the appeal of the
district court’s judgment and permanent injunction. Because the parties are
familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we need not recount it
here.
Contrary to Appellee’s assertion, the Distributees have standing to pursue
this appeal because the district court enjoined “all groups claiming to constitute the
tribal government,” which arguably forms the basis of the Distributees’ claim.
** The Honorable David A. Ezra, United States District Judge for the
District of Hawaii, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 4 --

Nonetheless, the appeal fails on the merits. First, the injuries alleged by the
Distributees, recognition of the Interim and New Tribal Councils and failure to
recognize tribal court rulings, are not part of the district court’s decision. The
district court did not determine which disputant tribal faction represented the
rightful tribal council or leadership. Rather, the district court summarized the
intra-tribal dispute among the factions, the actions taken by the BIA and the IBIA
with respect to the 2010 Interim Tribal Council, and the October 2015 Tribal
Council Election. Further, the tribal court rulings referenced by the Distributees
were irrelevant to the issues before the district court: the Tribe’s compliance with
the provisions of the class III gaming Compact between the Tribe and the State of
California requiring the Tribe to ensure the public’s health, safety, and welfare in
operating its Casino.
Because the district court did not recognize one faction over another, and did
not err by failing to recognize tribal court rulings that were irrelevant to the issues
before it, reversal of the district court’s judgment or permanent injunction would
not redress or have a practical effect on the injuries alleged by the Distributees.
On the merits, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the
injunction. The State of California sufficiently established irreparable harm in the
danger that the continued conflict over the tribal casino operations posed to public
3

-- 3 of 4 --

safety. There were no adequate remedies at law. The balance of hardships favored
the State. The public interest was served by the entry of a permanent injunction.
The district court acted entirely properly.
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
4

-- 4 of 4 --