Big Lagoon Rancheria v. State of California
789 F.3d 947
9th Cir.2015Background
- Big Lagoon Rancheria is a federally recognized California tribe that seeks to build a Class III casino on an 11‑acre parcel the BIA took into trust for the tribe in 1994; the tribe also holds an adjacent 9‑acre parcel in trust.
- IGRA requires tribes and states to negotiate compacts in good faith for Class III gaming on "Indian lands;" if negotiations fail the tribe may sue the state under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7).
- California negotiated with Big Lagoon and twice litigated/participated in administrative challenges concerning the trust decision in the late 1990s and thereafter; negotiations later collapsed and the tribe sued California in district court (2009) alleging failure to negotiate in good faith.
- California argued as defenses that (a) the BIA’s 1994 trust decision was invalid under Carcieri because the tribe was not "under Federal jurisdiction" in 1934, and (b) the tribe’s federal recognition was suspect — effectively collateral attacks on BIA administrative decisions.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the tribe, finding California failed to negotiate in good faith; the Ninth Circuit (en banc) affirmed, holding California could not collaterally attack the BIA entrustment/recognition in this IGRA negotiation suit and that California’s discovery-delay argument did not warrant reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether California can defeat an IGRA negotiation claim by collaterally attacking the BIA’s 1994 trust decision for the 11‑acre parcel | Big Lagoon: State cannot evade IGRA duties by collateral attack; trust decision stands absent timely APA review | California: BIA lacked authority under Carcieri; parcel not valid "Indian lands," so no IGRA negotiation duty | State may not collaterally attack the entrustment in this suit; such challenges must be pursued under the APA and are time‑barred here — held for Big Lagoon |
| Whether California can collaterally challenge the tribe’s federal recognition status | Big Lagoon: Recognition is settled; state’s late challenge is improper here | California: Tribe’s listing/recognition is unclear; creates factual dispute | Court held recognition challenges are APA claims and time‑barred; collateral attack is improper |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying California a continuance for additional discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) | Big Lagoon: State was not diligent in pursuing discovery; denial proper | California: Needed additional discovery about trust/recognition issues to oppose summary judgment | Denial affirmed: state lacked diligence and failed to show additional discovery would preclude summary judgment |
| Whether negotiating environmental mitigation constitutes bad faith under IGRA | Big Lagoon: State’s environmental demands can be pretext for bad faith if not meaningful concessions | California: Environmental conditions were legitimate negotiation points | District court correctly held environmental mitigation is a permissible negotiation topic; not per se bad faith; cross‑appeal by tribe moot because remedy complete |
Key Cases Cited
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (2009) (interpreting "now under Federal jurisdiction" in the IRA and limiting BIA trust authority)
- Match‑E‑Be‑Nash‑She‑Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak, 132 S. Ct. 2199 (2012) (treating a challenge to a BIA land‑into‑trust decision as an APA claim)
- United States v. Backlund, 689 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2012) (precluding collateral attacks that circumvent administrative‑review procedures)
- United States v. Lowry, 512 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2008) (refusing collateral attack on agency decision after failure to seek timely review)
- Wind River Mining Corp. v. United States, 946 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1991) (statute‑of‑limitations accrual rule and limited exception where agency decision's adverse application is challenged)