JW Gaming Development, LLC v. James

Background

JW Gaming Development, LLC moved for summary judgment against all seventeen remaining defendants on the two claims still pending: fraud and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a federal law commonly called RICO. JW Gaming sought $21,520,000 in damages.

The fraud claim was asserted against ten individual tribal defendants from the Pinoleville Pomo Nation—Angela James, Leona Williams, Lenora Steele, Michelle Campbell, Kathy Stallworth, Jason Steele, Cassandra Steele, Veronica Timberlake, Donald Williams, and Andrew Stevenson—two Canales defendants, Michael Canales and Melissa Canales, and John Tang. The RICO claim was asserted against those thirteen defendants, plus Julian Maldonado, Lori Canales, Kelly Canales, and the Canales Group LLC.

Summary-judgment motion

Summary judgment is a decision without a trial that is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute about facts that could affect the result. JW Gaming argued that the individual tribal defendants had conceded the complaint’s allegations by stating in earlier summary-judgment motions that the allegations were undisputed for purposes of those motions.

The court rejected JW Gaming’s argument. It reasoned that the statements were conditional and that it would be unjust to treat two footnotes as preventing the individual tribal defendants from defending against a multimillion-dollar judgment. The court also concluded that the briefing showed numerous disputes of material fact, including disputes about the defendants’ roles in the parties’ dealings, their knowledge, and their intent.

The court emphasized that intent is an element of fraud and of the predicate acts underlying the RICO claim. Because questions about a person’s subjective intent are rarely suitable for summary judgment, the court held that summary judgment was not appropriate. JW Gaming’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

Request for partial final judgment

In the alternative, JW Gaming asked the court to enter partial final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) on Claim One, its breach-of-contract claim. The court had previously granted summary judgment to JW Gaming on that claim on January 21, 2020. JW Gaming argued that the contract claim involved a distinct group of defendants, that the legal analysis was sufficiently separate from the remaining claims, and that the Tribe’s continuing debt threatened its ability to collect damages.

The court declined to enter partial final judgment. It found that the claims were complex and overlapping, so judicial economy did not favor an early judgment. The court also noted that all of JW Gaming’s damages arose from its $5.38 million investment in the casino project and that JW Gaming could not recover twice; depending on the fraud and RICO results, it would have to choose one remedy. The request for partial final judgment was denied.

Other ruling and disposition

The court stated that the July 8, 2020 hearing was vacated. In a footnote, it said the individual tribal defendants’ motion to strike evidence submitted with JW Gaming’s reply was denied as moot because the court did not consider that evidence when denying summary judgment. The court said it would address other evidentiary objections during motions before trial or at trial.

Judge Tham H. Orrick therefore denied JW Gaming’s motion for summary judgment or entry of partial final judgment.