Guidiville Rancheria of California v. United States Of America
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:12-cv-01326
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Guidiville Rancheria v. United States, Judge Rogers partly granted and partly denied a temporary restraining order, reinstated reporting, and denied other requested relief.
The order directly affected Upstream Point Molate LLC, Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians, the City of Richmond, and the Petitioners seeking participation in the post-judgment proceedings. It reinstated reporting obligations for the City and limited the content of any proposed Ninth Circuit filing, while leaving the Amended Judgment valid and enforceable.
What happened
In Guidiville Rancheria of California v. United States of America, Upstream Point Molate LLC and Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians asked the court to restrict the City of Richmond’s filings in a related appeal and to restart reporting about compliance with an earlier judgment. The city disputed that it was disavowing the judgment and did not oppose restarting the reports.
The court found the evidence too unclear to resolve whether the city had repudiated the judgment and noted that the plaintiffs had not filed a motion to enforce it. The court said the city’s conduct could be considered in a future enforcement proceeding.
Judge Rogers granted in part and denied in part the temporary restraining-order motion. The court reinstated the judgment’s reporting requirement, required a statement in any proposed Ninth Circuit filing, denied all other requested relief, vacated the scheduled evidentiary hearing, and denied the Petitioners’ separate request as moot and without prejudice.
The detailed version
- Guidiville Rancheria of California v. United States Of America · No. 4:12-cv-01326
- Yvonne Rogers
- Nov. 30, 2021
Background
The action had closed on August 17, 2018, and the court had entered an Amended Judgment on November 21, 2019. In a related action, judgment had been entered against several Petitioners, and an appeal was pending in the Ninth Circuit. The Petitioners’ appeal sought to invalidate the Amended Judgment in this case.
The plaintiffs—Upstream Point Molate LLC and Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians—alleged that, after a change in the City of Richmond’s city council, the City was repudiating the Amended Judgment and refusing to defend its legitimacy. They moved for a temporary restraining order seeking to prevent certain City filings with the Ninth Circuit before December 10, 2021, prevent a filing that disavowed the Amended Judgment, and reorder a joint status report about compliance. The City argued that its proposed letter did not disavow the Amended Judgment and did not oppose the request to restart the reporting requirement.
Court’s analysis
The court discussed California contract law, under which a settlement agreement is a contract that may be breached through nonperformance or repudiation. The court also noted the City’s concession that it would be judicially barred from taking inconsistent positions in the related appeal. The City argued, however, that taking no action did not amount to inconsistent action or repudiation.
The court found too much ambiguity in the current record to resolve the issue at that stage. The plaintiffs had presented evidence suggesting an intent to repudiate the Amended Judgment, but the City contested that inference. The court described the City’s changing position about filing a brief supporting the judgment’s legitimacy as circumstantial evidence that could support repudiation, particularly if the change resulted from the change in city-council composition. The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had not filed a motion to enforce the Amended Judgment.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion for a temporary restraining order. It reinstated the reporting requirement in paragraph 29 of the Amended Judgment. The first report was required on December 13, 2021, with details about the City’s actions concerning compliance since the last report; another report was required on February 1, 2022, and every 45 days afterward. The first report also had to update the City’s actions concerning the related appeal.
The court denied all other requested relief, except that any proposed City letter filed with the Ninth Circuit had to state: “The City understands that Appellees The Guidiville Rancheria of California and Upstream Point Molate, LLC will be filing an Answering Brief.” The court vacated the December 1, 2021 evidentiary hearing as unnecessary at that point.
The court also denied the Petitioners’ ex parte application and motion to be added as necessary parties to the post-judgment motion and to file a response to the temporary-restraining-order motion as moot. The order additionally states that the Petitioners’ request was denied without prejudice. The court said the Amended Judgment remained valid and enforceable unless adjudicated otherwise, and terminated Docket Numbers 421 and 427.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.