Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria v. State of California

Background

Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria, a federally recognized Indian Tribe located in Humboldt County within the Northern District of California, sued the State of California and Gavin Newsom in his official capacity as Governor of California. The complaint alleged that the defendants failed to negotiate in good faith under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

The plaintiff and other tribes had previously negotiated gaming compacts with California. After negotiations for renewed compacts failed, several tribes filed related lawsuits in the Eastern District of California. The plaintiff and three other tribes later withdrew from a tribal negotiating group, made individual compact offers to California, and filed additional lawsuits after the state rejected those offers. The plaintiff filed this action in the Northern District, while the other three tribes filed in the Eastern District. The Eastern District cases were related and assigned to Judge Anthony Ishii.

Motions and Transfer Analysis

The defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Eastern District, where the related actions were pending. Section 1404(a) allows a federal district court to transfer a case, when the new district is one where the case could originally have been filed, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

The court found that the case could have been filed in the Eastern District because the state defendants were located in Sacramento. The witness-convenience factor favored neither side because Indian Gaming Regulatory Act good-faith cases are decided based on the negotiation record, and neither party identified any witnesses.

The remaining factors favored transfer. The court reasoned that transfer would place all the related cases before one judge, promote judicial economy and efficiency, reduce the risk of inconsistent rulings, and support coordinated settlement efforts. The related cases involved overlapping negotiation records, and Judge Ishii was already familiar with the facts and legal issues because summary-judgment motions had been filed and heard in one of those cases.

The plaintiff mainly argued that its choice to sue in the Northern District deserved deference. The court agreed that the choice required consideration, but found that the other factors, particularly during the pandemic, outweighed that deference. The court also rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on a forum-selection provision in its 1999 compact, finding that the provision was permissive because it said the plaintiff “may” bring suit in the district where its gaming facility was located.

Rulings

The court granted the defendants’ motion for leave to file their request for judicial notice and granted the request for judicial notice of Judge Ishii’s order relating the Eastern District actions. The court also granted the defendants’ motion to change venue and ordered the clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The court found oral argument unnecessary and vacated the October 29 hearing. Judge William Alsup did not decide the underlying allegation that the defendants failed to negotiate in good faith.