Unite Here Local 30 v. Sycuan Band, 35f4th695

Background

Sycuan Band (a federally recognized tribe) entered a 2015 gaming compact with California that required adoption of a Tribal Labor Relations Ordinance (TLRO) governing casino labor and containing a broad arbitration clause and an express waiver of sovereign immunity for purposes of compelling arbitration.
TLRO §7 provided that if a union in writing promised to comply with specified restrictions (Section 7(b)), the Tribe would automatically enter a bilateral contract adopting the TLRO; §13 required arbitration for “all issues” under the TLRO and §13(e) waived immunity to compel arbitration.
In November 2019 Unite Here Local 30 sent a letter promising to comply with Section 7(b) and demanded union organizing-related rights; Sycuan refused those demands and declined to participate in arbitration, asserting NLRA preemption and lack of a binding bilateral agreement.
Unite Here sued in federal court to compel arbitration under the TLRO; Sycuan answered and counterclaimed seeking a declaratory judgment that the NLRA preempts the TLRO (and reiterating sovereign immunity defenses).
The district court granted Unite Here’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (compelling arbitration) and dismissed Sycuan’s counterclaim; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction over Sycuan’s counterclaim	District court had supplemental jurisdiction but should decline to hear the counterclaim prudentially	Counterclaim arises under federal law (NLRA preemption) so federal-question jurisdiction exists	District court had original jurisdiction over Unite Here’s arbitration claim, supplemental (not original) jurisdiction over counterclaim; declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction was not an abuse of discretion
Formation of arbitration contract	TLRO §7 was an open offer; Unite Here’s November 2019 letter accepted it and created a bilateral contract	TLRO is an unenforceable ordinance/an agreement to agree lacking definite terms	Contract formed when Unite Here made the required promises; terms were definite and no further assent was required
Arbitrability of NLRA preemption defense	Preemption challenges the contract as a whole and are for the arbitrator to decide	NLRA preempts the TLRO; court should decide preemption and refuse arbitration	NLRA preemption challenges the entire contract (not the arbitration clause) and thus are for the arbitrator; court should not decide merits now
Tribal sovereign immunity waiver	TLRO §13(e) expressly waives immunity to compel arbitration; agreeing to arbitrate waives immunity for enforcement	Tribe did not unequivocally waive immunity for NLRA/preemption issues; immunity bars adjudication	Express waiver in TLRO and agreement to judicially enforce arbitration suffice to waive immunity for compelling arbitration

Key Cases Cited

Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440 (2006) (distinguishes challenges to arbitration clause from challenges to contract as a whole; latter for arbitrator)
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967) (fraud-in-the-inducement and contract‑wide validity issues are for arbitrator)
Rent‑A‑Center, W., Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. 63 (2010) (reaffirms that arbitrator decides contract‑wide validity challenges when clause delegates general issues)
Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287 (2010) (courts decide threshold issue whether parties formed an arbitration agreement)
C & L Enters. v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Okla., 532 U.S. 411 (2001) (tribal waiver of immunity by consenting to judicial enforcement of arbitration agreements)
Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (1978) (tribal sovereign immunity waiver must be clear and unequivocal)
Carlsbad Tech., Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635 (2009) (appellate standard for reviewing refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction)
United Steelworkers of Am. v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574 (1960) (presumption in favor of arbitrability)