BIG LAGOON RANCHERIA v. California
759 F. Supp. 2d 1149
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Big Lagoon seeks a Class III gaming compact with California and alleges the State negotiated in bad faith under IGRA.
- This is the second IGRA suit; earlier proceedings addressed environmental/land-use concessions and a side letter in Big Lagoon I.
- The State proposed various compacts with revenue sharing, exclusivity, and site-location terms, including off-reservation options.
- Settlement-era discussions included a Barstow Compact, which failed to be ratified by the California Legislature and lapsed in 2007.
- In 2007–2008 the State's offers conditioned gaming on site restrictions, exclusivity and a share of net win, with mitigation tied to environmental concerns.
- The court concluded the State failed to negotiate in good faith and granted summary judgment for Big Lagoon, directing a sixty-day path to finalize a compact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does revenue sharing to the State show bad faith? | Big Lagoon contends general fund revenue sharing is not directly related to gaming and is not a meaningful concession. | California argues revenue sharing is permissible under Rincon and IGRA as a concession for a compact. | Big Lagoon prevails; general fund revenue sharing is not a valid, directly related concession. |
| Are environmental mitigation measures within IGRA's permissible scope for negotiation? | Environmental take‑backs are outside IGRA's scope and should not be mandated. | Mitigation measures can be negotiated if directly related to gaming or standards for operation. | Environmental mitigation measures are permissible if directly related to gaming or as operation standards and bargained for with a meaningful concession. |
| Is Rincon controlling for evaluating good-faith negotiation? | Rincon supports rejecting general fund revenue sharing and limits concessions. | Rincon permits revenue-sharing bargaining, and other authorities support some form of concessions. | Rincon governs, and the State failed to provide a meaningful concession, so good-faith negotiation was not shown. |
| Did Carcieri provide a post hoc justification for the State's position? | Big Lagoon lands may have been unlawfully acquired; Carcieri should inform the negotiation. | Carcieri does not retroactively validate the State's negotiation posture. | Carcieri-based reasoning cannot salvage the State's negotiations; post hoc rationale rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (burden-shifting framework for good-faith negotiations; general fund revenue sharing not directly related)
- Coyote Valley II, 331 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2003) (revenue sharing and concessions must be bargained for and related to gaming; SDF/RSTF context)
- Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106 (9th Cir. 2008) (rejects post hoc explanations; evaluates agency action on its record)
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (U.S. 2009) (capability to acquire land in trust; not a basis for post hoc renegotiation of good faith)
- Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wilson, 64 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1994) (early framework for IGRA proceedings and good-faith negotiation duties)