The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 YOCHA DEHE WINTUN NATION, No. 2:19-cv-00025-JAM-AC
VIEJAS BAND OF KUMEYAAY
12 INDIANS, and SYCUAN BAND OF
THE KUMEYAAY NATION,
13 ORDER DENYING THE CALIFORNIA
Plaintiffs, GAMING ASSOCIATION’S MOTION FOR
14 RECONSIDERATION
v.
15
GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of
16 California, and the STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
17
Defendants.
18
19 On January 3, 2019, the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, Sycuan
20 Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, and Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians
21 (collectively “Plaintiffs” or “Tribes”) filed a complaint against
22 the State of California and Governor Gavin Newsom (collectively
23 “Defendants”). Compl., ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs alleged Defendants
24 breached their Tribal-State Compacts and the covenants of good
25 faith and fair dealing implied therein. See Compl. ¶¶ 124-135.
26 Shortly thereafter, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and the
27 California Gaming Association (“CGA”) filed a motion to
28 intervene. Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 17; CGA’s Mot. to
1 Intervene, ECF No. 11. The Court granted Defendants’ motion to
2 dismiss, finding Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which
3 relief could be granted. Order, ECF No. 29. Absent a pending
4 case or controversy, the Court sua sponte denied CGA’s motion to
5 intervene as moot.
6 CGA now contends the Court must reconsider its prior order.1
7 Mot. for Reconsideration (“Mot.”), ECF No. 31. Plaintiffs oppose
8 the motion. Opp’n, ECF No. 41. Defendants do not. Statement of
9 Non-opp’n, ECF No. 42. For the reasons set forth below, the
10 Court DENIES CGA’s motion for reconsideration.
11
12 I. OPINION
13 A. Legal Standard
14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) allows parties to
15 file a motion “to alter or amend a judgement” within 28 days of
16 entry of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e). Rule 59(e)
17 “offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the
18 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.”
19 Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).
20 “[A]bsent highly unusual circumstances,” a district court will
21 not grant a motion for reconsideration unless (1) it is
22 presented with newly discovered evidence; (2) the Court
23 committed clear error; or (3) there was an intervening change in
24 the controlling law. 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179
25 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Parties may not use Rule 59(e)
26
27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
28 scheduled for August 13, 2019.
1 motions “to raise arguments . . . for the first time when they
2 could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.”
3 Kona Enters v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.
4 2000).
5 B. Analysis
6 CGA argues the Court committed clear error in light of
7 Allied Concrete & Supply Co. v. Baker, 904 F.3d 1053, 1066 (9th
8 Cir. 2018); W. Coast Seafood Processors Ass’n v. NRDC, 643 F.3d
9 701, 704 (9th Cir. 2011); Canatella v. California, 404 F.3d 1106,
10 1109 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005); and United States v. Ford, 650 F.2d
11 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 1981). CGA interprets these cases to stand
12 for the proposition that dismissal of a case does not moot a non-
13 party’s motion to intervene so long as a party “kept the
14 underlying action alive by filing a notice of appeal.” Mot. at 1
15 (quoting Canatella, 404 F.3d at 1109 n.1). The Court does not
16 agree with CGA’s reading of these cases.
17 The procedural posture of this case materially distinguishes
18 it from Allied Concrete & Supply Co., W. Coast Seafood Processors
19 Ass’n, Canatella, and Ford. The district courts in those cases
20 denied proposed-intervenors’ motions to intervene on non-mootness
21 grounds. The proposed intervenors appealed. Subsequently, the
22 underlying actions were dismissed—either voluntarily or by court
23 order. The proposed intervenors’ pending appeals raised the
24 question of whether dismissal of the underlying suits mooted the
25 appeals. In W. Coast Seafood Processors, 643 F.3d at 704 and
26 Ford, 650 F.2d at 1142-43, the Ninth Circuit held the proposed
27 intervenors’ appeals became moot when the underlying suits were
28 dismissed and neither party appealed the dismissal. In
1 Canatella, however, a party to the underlying action appealed the
2 lower court’s dismissal. 404 F.3d at 1109 n.1. The Ninth
3 Circuit found, in that context, that the proposed intervenor’s
4 appeal likewise remained a live controversy. 404 F.3d at 1109
5 n.1. Allied Concrete & Supply Co., 904 F.3d at 1066 extended
6 Canatella, holding that “a potential petition for rehearing or
7 certiorari keeps a case alive for the purpose of appealing a
8 motion to intervene.”
9 Following Allied Concrete & Supply, the appeal of a motion
10 to intervene satisfies Article III’s “case or controversy”
11 requirement so long as parties to the underlying action have an
12 avenue for challenging the district court’s dismissal. 904 F.3d
13 at 1066-67. A reviewing court may ultimately reverse the lower
14 court’s dismissal; in which case, the propriety of a non-party’s
15 ability to intervene is also at issue. See id.; see also
16 Canatella, 404 F.3d at 1109 n.1. But neither Allied Concrete &
17 Supply nor Canatella spoke to the question of whether a district
18 court—having dismissed a case in its entirety—should adjudicate a
19 motion to intervene simply because one of the parties appealed
20 that dismissal. Indeed, this Court found no basis for doing so
21 when it denied CGA’s motion as moot in its June 18, 2019 order.
22 Unlike in Allied Concrete & Supply, Plaintiffs do not contend the
23 Court’s dismissal bars CGA from appealing its motion to
24 intervene. In fact, Plaintiff’s concede CGA could renew its
25 motion to intervene if the Ninth Circuit reversed this Court’s
26 dismissal. See Opp’n at 2. The Court’s June 18 order only
27 prevents CGA from participating in Plaintiffs’ pending appeal.
28 But nothing in CGA’s motion suggests it is entitled to that type
1 of participation.
2 CGA has not demonstrated that the Court committed clear
3 | error when it denied CGA’s motion to intervene as moot.
4 | Moreover, CGA did not contend that newly-discovered evidence or
5 an intervening change in the controlling law warranted
6 | reconsideration. Accordingly, CGA’s motion is DENIED.
7
8 Il. ORDER
9 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES CGA’s
10 | motion for reconsideration.
11 IT IS SO ORDERED.
12 Dated: September 9, 2019
13 kA
14 teiren staves odermacr 7008
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28