973 F.3d 953
9th Cir.2020Background
- Pauma (tribe) sought to renegotiate its 1999 tribal–state gaming compact to add (1) on‑track horse racing/wagering and (2) expanded lottery games.
- The State of California agreed to negotiate, repeatedly asked Pauma for specific draft language and a business plan, and brought the California Horse Racing Board director to explain on‑track racing.
- Pauma declined to provide detailed plans, then proposed piecemeal negotiation; the State refused piecemeal bargaining and circulated a comprehensive ~140‑page draft compact and sample pari‑mutuel addendum.
- Pauma filed suit under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), alleging multiple good‑faith negotiation violations (surface bargaining, protectionism, refusal to negotiate particular game types, etc.).
- The district court granted summary judgment to the State on 20 of 22 claims; the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the objective record showed the State negotiated in good faith and remained willing to continue negotiations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State negotiated in good faith under IGRA (overall) | State stalled, surface bargained, and offered an inadequate draft | State actively engaged, sought details, consulted experts, proposed drafts, remained willing to meet | State negotiated in good faith; affirm judgment for State |
| Surface bargaining re: lottery games | State feigned ignorance to avoid real negotiation | State legitimately asked Pauma to enumerate games and provide draft language to avoid violating lottery law | No surface bargaining; State’s requests were reasonable and Pauma failed to respond |
| Protectionism (preserving State Lottery revenue) | State protected Lottery by resisting Pauma’s expanded lottery games | State explicitly agreed to negotiate games beyond Lottery if enumerated | No protectionism; State agreed to negotiate additional games |
| On‑track horse racing negotiations | State refused to discuss on‑track wagering and stalled | State asked for business plan, consulted racing board, provided sample addendum and was willing to negotiate | No bad faith; State’s requests for specifics were reasonable |
| Refusal to renegotiate full compact vs amendment | State manipulated amendment/renegotiation distinction to avoid obligations | State agreed in Jan 2016 to renegotiate the entire 1999 Compact and engaged on new game requests | No bad faith; State agreed to renegotiate full compact |
| Draft compact was a take‑it‑or‑leave‑it with harsh terms | Draft was final and unduly harsh; evidence of bad faith | Draft was preliminary, circulated to move negotiations forward and invited Pauma’s input | Draft was a negotiation tool; not evidence of bad faith |
Key Cases Cited
- Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. California, 813 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015) (prior appeal concerning 2004 amendment rescission and litigation history)
- Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. California (In re Gaming Related Cases), 331 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2003) (good‑faith negotiation standard and impasse guidance)
- Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2010) (evaluate good faith objectively on negotiation record)
- Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Connecticut, 913 F.2d 1024 (2d Cir. 1990) (state bad‑faith negotiation by empty promises)
- Cabazon Band of Mission Indians v. Wilson, 124 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 1997) (states cannot make empty promises in IGRA negotiations)
- Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wilson, 64 F.3d 1250 (9th Cir. 1994) (compact requirement for Class III gaming)
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (U.S. 1996) (overview of IGRA’s structure)
- Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 572 U.S. 782 (U.S. 2014) (federal‑tribal gaming sovereignty context)
- Idaho v. Shoshone‑Bannock Tribes, 465 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing amendment vs renegotiation issues)
- Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Wyoming, 389 F.3d 1308 (10th Cir. 2004) (refusal to negotiate beyond state’s stated game bounds as bad faith)