JW Gaming Development, LLC v. James

Background

JW Gaming Development, LLC invested $5,380,000 in a casino project involving the Pinoleville Pomo Nation (PPN). PPN, the Pinoleville Gaming Authority, and JW Gaming entered into a July 10, 2012 promissory note. The note provided that the loan would become due and payable if PPN did not open a casino or gaming facility within three years. No such facility opened.

The court previously granted JW Gaming judgment on the pleadings on its breach-of-contract claim and later entered judgment. Judgment was entered against PPN and the Pinoleville Gaming Authority. The court also dismissed JW Gaming’s other claims. A writ of execution was later issued against PPN to enforce the judgment.

Motion for Reconsideration

PPN moved under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 for reconsideration of the contract judgment. The court denied the motion.

PPN argued that the court had improperly converted JW Gaming’s motion for judgment on the pleadings into a summary-judgment ruling without adequate notice. The court rejected that argument. It explained that its ruling was based on the terms of the note and the pleaded, uncontested fact that no gaming facility had opened. The court also concluded that PPN had had a full and fair opportunity to address the relevant material and had not timely objected to the procedure.

PPN argued that the earlier judgment had not decided whether JW Gaming could collect on the judgment because the note’s limitation-on-recourse provision allegedly restricted enforcement. The court concluded that the earlier order had decided that issue. It held that the note required payment and that JW Gaming’s recovery was not limited by the absence of casino revenues. The court also rejected PPN’s argument that this issue fell outside the contract claim pleaded in the complaint.

PPN further challenged the court’s interpretation of the note and the calculation of interest. The court held that the argument about the note’s ambiguity was waived because it was raised improperly in reply and, in any event, had already been addressed. Regarding interest, the court upheld the conclusion that the note required simple interest and that interest began accruing when the note was entered, rather than when the loan became due three years later.

The parties also disputed which defendants were liable. JW Gaming argued that all entity defendants were liable, while PPN argued that only PPN could be liable. The court explained that neither position was correct. JW Gaming had sought judgment only against PPN and the Pinoleville Gaming Authority. The court therefore clarified that those two entities were found liable, while the Pinoleville Gaming Commission, Pinoleville Business Board, and Pinoleville Economic Development, LLC were not found liable in the earlier orders. Their status as successors or assigns was not litigated.

Motion to Recall or Quash the Writ

PPN separately moved to recall or quash the writ of execution. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 generally requires enforcement procedures to follow the law of the state where the federal court is located, unless a federal statute applies.

PPN argued that federal law allowed only the United States Marshals Service to execute the writ, not sheriffs or registered process servers. The court rejected that argument. It concluded that the writ’s reference to a marshal or sheriff directed execution to the United States Marshals Service and that registered process servers could serve or levy the writ when permitted by California law. The court held that the writ did not conflict with federal law or Rule 69.

Disposition

The court denied the motion for reconsideration. It also denied the motion to recall or quash the writ of execution. The court clarified that the contract judgment was entered only against PPN and the Pinoleville Gaming Authority, not the other entity defendants.