Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
No19‐_______________________________________________
UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS
FORTHENINTHCIRCUIT__________________________________________
PINOLEVILLEPOMONATION,afederally‐recognizedIndiantribe;
PINOLEVILLEGAMINGAUTHORITY;PINOLEVILLEGAMINGCOMMISSION;PINOLEVILLEBUSINESSBOARD;PINOLEVILLEECONOMICDEVELOPMENT,
LLC,aCalifornialimitedliabilitycompany;ANGELAJAMES;LEONAL.WILLIAMS;LENORASTEELE;KATHYSTALLWORTH;MICHELLECAMPBELL;JULIANJ.MALDONADO;DONALDWILLIAMS;VERONICATIMBERLAKE;CASSANDRASTEELE;JASONEDWARDRUNNINGBEARSTEELE;and
ANDREWSTEVENSON,
Petitioners,v.
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT,NORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA,Respondent,
and
JWGAMINGDEVELOPMENT,LLC,aCalifornialimitedliabilitycompany,RealPartyinInterest.
__________________________________________OnPetitionforaWritofMandamustotheUnitedStateDistrictCourtforthe
NorthernDistrictofCalifornia(No.3:18‐cv‐02669‐WHO)__________________________________________
PETITIONFORAWRITOFMANDAMUSANDEMERGENCYMOTIONFORA
STAYOFDISCOVERYUNDERCIRCUITRULE27‐3__________________________________________
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 1 of 53
PADRAICI.MCCOY,ESQ.,223341PadraicI.McCoy,P.C.6550GunparkDriveBoulder,CO80301Telephone:(303)500‐7756Facsimile:(300)558‐3893E‐mail:[email protected]
RUDYE.VERNER,ESQ. BergHillGreenleafRuscittiLLP 1712PearlStreet Boulder,CO80302 Telephone:(303)402‐1600 Facsimile:(303)402‐1601 E‐mail:[email protected]
Counsel for Petitioners
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 2 of 53
i
CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 CERTIFICATE
Pursuant to Circuit Rule 27-3(a), I hereby certify that to avoid irreparable
harm to petitioners PinolevillePomoNation(afederally‐recognizedIndian
tribe)(the“Tribe”),PinolevilleGamingAuthority,PinolevilleGaming
Commission,PinolevilleBusinessBoard,PinolevilleEconomicDevelopment,
LLC(aCalifornialimitedliabilitycompany)(togetherwiththeTribe,the
“TribalEntityDefendants”),AngelaJames,LeonaL.Williams,,LenoraSteele,
KathyStallworth,MichelleCampbell,JulianJ.Maldonado,DonaldWilliams,
VeronicaTimberlake,CassandraSteele,JasonEdwardRunningBearSteele,
andAndrewStevenson,eachanelectedofficialoremployeeoftheTribe(the
“IndividualTribalDefendants”and,togetherwiththeTribalEntity
Defendants,the“Petitioners”),reliefisneededinlessthan21days’time.
1. RegardingCircuitRule27‐3(a)(1),Petitionersnotifiedboththe
ClerkandcounselfortheRealPartyinInterest,JWGamingDevelopment,LLC
(“JWGaming”or“JW”),onMondayJune17,2019,ofitsintenttofilethis
mandamuspetitionandemergencymotion.Thejust‐finalizedpetitionand
motionarebeingservedsimultaneouslywithfilingviaemailtothecounsel’s
belowstatedaddress.
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 3 of 53
ii
2. RegardingCircuitRule27‐3(a)(3)(i),counselareasfollows:
CounselforPetitioners:
PadraicI.McCoyPadraicI.McCoy,P.C.6550GunparkDriveBoulder,CO80301Telephone:(303)500‐7756E‐mail:[email protected] RudyE.VernerBergHillGreenleafRuscittiLLP1712PearlStreetBoulder,CO80302Telephone:(303)402‐1600E‐mail:[email protected]/RealPartyinInterest:
GregoryM.NarvaezJohnM.PeeblesTimHennessyFredericksPeebles&MorganLLP2020LStreet,Suite250Sacramento,CA95811Telephone:(916)441‐2700E‐Mail:[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]. RegardingCircuitRule27‐3(a)(3)(ii),thefactsshowingthe
existenceandnatureoftheclaimedemergencyaresetforthindetailbelowin
theStatementoftheFacts(pp.10‐14)andintheArgument(pp.24‐26and
30‐31).Inbrief,Petitionersrespectfullyrequestemergencyreliefinthis
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 4 of 53
iii
matterbecausetheerroneousdiscoveryorderinquestion,arulingwhich
ordersdiscoverytoproceedonclaimswhichareoninterlocutoryappealand
thussubjecttoanautomaticstay,wasallowedtostandbythedistrictcourt
andPetitionersfaceimpendingdeadlinestorespondtoextensivewritten
discovery(June26,2019)andthedepositionsofnumeroustribalofficials
which,ifallowedtoproceed,wouldconstituteextra‐jurisdictionaldiscovery
andasevereviolationofthetribe’sandtribalofficials’sovereignimmunity
fromsuit.
4. RegardingCircuitRule27‐3(a)(3)(iii),JWGaming’scounselwas
notifiedthroughatelephoneconferenceheldonJune12,andfurtherthrough
anemailsentonJune16,ofPetitioners’intenttofilethismandamuspetition
andemergencymotion.Counselisbeingservedwiththejust‐finalized
petitionandmotionsimultaneouslywithfilingviaemailtocounsel’sabove‐
statedaddress.
5. RegardingCircuitRule27‐3(a)(4),assetforthintheStatementof
Factsbelow(pp.8‐12),thePetitionershavesought—andbeendenied—relief
fromthedistrictcourt.MagistrateJudgeRobertIllman’srulingonJune4that
hewouldnotrevisitthedistrictcourt’sApril12order—whichmeansthe
erroneousdecisionwillgovernfurtherdiscoveryinthismatter—isthe
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 5 of 53
iv
precipitatingeventforthefilingofthispetitionandemergencymotion.
PetitionersaresimultaneouslyfilinginthedistrictcourtaMotionforaStay
PendingaPetitionforaWritofMandamus.
s/RudyE.VernerRudyVernerCounselforPetitioners
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 6 of 53
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS CIRCUIT RULE 27-3 CERTIFICATE ...................................................................... i I. Introduction........................................................................................................................1
II. StatementofSubjectMatterJurisdiction...............................................................5III. ReliefSought.......................................................................................................................5IV. TheIssuesPresented......................................................................................................6
V. StatementofFactsNecessaryToUnderstandtheIssuesPresented
bythePetition....................................................................................................................7
VI. ReasonsWhytheWritShouldIssue......................................................................15
A. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderIsClearlyErroneousasaMatterofLaw...................................................................................................16
1. TheDistrictCourtLacksJurisdictiontoProceedwith
LitigationofMattersonAppealandtheDistrictCourtDidExactlyThat,IncludingViolatingPetitioners’SovereignImmunity.............................................................................18
B. PetitionersHaveNoOtherAdequateMeanstoReliefand
PetitionersWillBeDamagedandPrejudicedInaWayNotCorrectableonAppeal.....................................................................................25
C. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderManifestsPersistent
DisregardfortheFederalRules...................................................................27
D. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderRaisesNewandImportantProblemsorIssuesofLawofFirstImpression..............29
VII. AllDiscoveryintheDistrictCourtShouldBeStayedPending
ResolutionofThisPetition.........................................................................................31
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 7 of 53
vi
VIII. IntheAlternative,ThisPetitionShouldBeTreatedasaCohenAppeal..................................................................................................................................33
A. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderConclusively
DeterminestheDisputedQuestion............................................................34B. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderResolvesanImportant
IssueSeparateFromtheMeritsoftheAction.......................................34
C. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderisEffectivelyUnreviewableonAppealfromaFinalJudgment.................................36
IX. Conclusion.........................................................................................................................36STATEMENTOFRELATEDCASESCERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCECERTIFICATEOFSERVICE
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 8 of 53
vii
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES
CasesAlaskav.UnitedStates,64F.3d1352(9thCir.1995)....................................................8 Azurinv.VonRaab,792F.2d914(9thCir.1986)...........................17,19,24,28,29 Bellv.FederalHomeLoanMortgageCorp.,No.11‐CV‐2514‐MMA,2012WL4576584,at*3(S.D.Cal.Oct.1,2012)..........................................................................21
Chumanv.Wright,960F.2d104(9thCir.1992).............................................................8 Cohenv.BeneficialIndustrialLoanCorp.,337U.S.541(1949).......................33,36 CompaniaMexicanaDeAviacion,S.A.v.Dist.CourtforCent.Dist.ofCalifornia,859F.2d1354(9thCir.1988)....................................................................15,29,30,33
FirestoneTire&RubberCo.v.Risjord,449U.S.368(1981).....................................34 Griggsv.ProvidentConsumerDiscountCo.,459U.S.56(1982)...........................7,8 Hiltonv.Braunskill,481U.S.770(1987)…………………………………………………….31 Hoffmanv.BeerDrivers&Salesmen’sLocalUnionNo.888,536F.2d1268(9thCir.1976)...................................................................................................................................17
InreCementAntitrustLitigation,673F.2d1020(9thCir.1981)..........................34 InrePapandreou,139F.3d247(D.C.Cir.1998).........................................................26 InrePhilippineNationalBank,397F.3d768(9thCir.2005)...................15,16,30 InreRains,428F.3d893(9thCir.2005)...........................................................18,22,29 Johnsonv.B.H.LiquidationCorp.,17F.3d394,1994WL41116,at*3(9thCir.Feb.10,1994)...................................................................................................................22,29
KiowaTribeofOklahomav.ManufacturingTechs.,Inc.,523U.S.751(1998)...........................................................................................................................18,19,24
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 9 of 53
viii
LaBuyv.HowesLeatherCo.,352U.S.249(1957).......................................................15 Lazarv.SuperiorCourt,909P.2d981(Cal.1996).......................................................21 Leiva‐Perezv.Holder,640F.3d962(9thCir.2011).............................................28,31 McClatchyNewspapersv.CentralValleyTypographicalUnion,686F.2d731(9thCir.1982).........................................................................................................................22
Michiganv.BayMillsIndianCommunity,572U.S.782(2014)...............................23 Millerv.Wright,705F.3d393(9thCir.2013).................................................18,19,24 Nkenv.Holder,556U.S.418(2009)……………….………………………………………….31 N.L.R.B.v.Sav‐onDrugs,Inc.,704F.2d1147(9thCir.1983).....................17,19,24 Petersonv.IslamicRepublicofIran,627F.3d1117(9thCir.2010).....................24 PitRiverHomeandAgr.Co‐opAss’nv.U.S.,30F.3d1088(9thCir.1994).........30 PyrodyneCorp.v.PyrotronicsCorp.,847F.2d1398(9thCir.1988).....................22 SantaClaraPueblov.Martinez,436U.S.49(1978)....................................................23 Schlagenhaufv.Holder,379U.S.104(1964)..................................................................15 Taiwanv.U.S.Dist.CourtfortheNorthernDist.ofCal.,128F.3d712(9thCir.1997)....................................................................................................................................15,30
TownofNorthBonneville,Wash.V.U.S.Dist.Court,WesternDist.ofWashington,732F.2d747(9thCir.1984)............................................................................................28
U.S.v.El‐O‐PathicPharmacy,192F.2d62(9thCir.1951)........................................22 UnitedStatesv.Claiborne,727F.2d842(9thCir.1984).............................17,18,25
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 10 of 53
ix
Statutes18U.S.C.§1961.............................................................................................................................7 28U.S.C.§1651......................................................................................................................5,31
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 11 of 53
1
I. IntroductionThissuitisanunprecedentedattemptbydisgruntledtribalmembers
andtheirattorneystouseaprivateparty’slegalclaimtoleverageatakeover
ofafederally‐recognizedtribeinNorthernCalifornia.Asaconsequenceofa
seriesofrulingsbythedistrictcourtinthiscase,plaintiffJWGaming,acasino
developerrepresentedbyanattorneywithclosetiestotherivalfaction,has
beengrantedlicensetopursuediscoveryagainsttheTribeonclaimsthatare
currentlyonappealtothisCourtandsubjecttoanautomaticstay.Thedistrict
courtnotonlylackstherequisitejurisdictiontopermitsuchdiscovery,butits
rulingspermitJWGaminganditsattorneystoobtainthousandsof
confidentialfinancialdocumentsoftheTribeinclearviolationoftheTribe’s—
andtribalofficials’—sovereignimmunity.Theunlawfuldiscoveryand
pointedviolationsofsovereignimmunitywillcontinueunlessabatedbythis
Court.
Petitioners,defendantsinCaseNo.1:18‐cv‐02669‐WHOintheUnited
StatesDistrictCourtfortheNorthernDistrictofCalifornia,petitionthisCourt
to(1)issueawritofmandamusdirectingtheUnitedStatesDistrictJudge
presidinginthiscasetovacateitsOrderonDiscoveryDisputedatedApril12,
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 12 of 53
2
2019(“DiscoveryOrder”)1pendingresolutionoftheappealpresentlybefore
thisCourtinCaseNumber18‐17008(the“Appeal”),whichisscheduledfor
oralargumentonAugust7,2019,and(2)orderanemergencystayofall
discoveryinthedistrictcourtuntilresolutionofthePetitionand,ifthe
Petitionisgranted,untiltheAppealisfinallydecided(collectively,“Petition”).
TheDiscoveryOrdermustbevacatedandalldiscoverystayed
pendingresolutionoftheAppealforanumberofcompellingreasons.First,
becausethedistrictcourtordereddiscoverytoproceedonJWGaming’sfraud
andRICOclaims,whicharethesubjectoftheAppealandthusautomatically
stayedandrestrictedtotheexclusivejurisdictionoftheNinthCircuit,the
districtcourtactedoutsideitsauthorityandjurisdiction.
Second,becausePetitionersraisedsovereignimmunityasadefense
tothefraudandRICOclaimsinthedistrictcourt,andthevalidityofthat
defenseiscurrentlyonappeal,theobligationofthedistrictcourttomaintain
thestatusquoregardingthoseissuesrendersPetitioners’sovereignimmunity
infullforceandeffectwithrespecttothoseclaimsunlessanduntiltheNinth
Circuitrulesotherwise.Inallowingdiscoverytoproceedonthefraudand
1 AppendixinSupportofPetition,VolumeIIatpp.337‐38.Subsequentcitestotheappendixwillcitethevolume,theappendix(“App.”),andthenthepagenumber,i.e.,2App.337‐38.
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 13 of 53
3
RICOclaims,despitetheautomaticstayandtheNinthCircuit’ssole
jurisdictionoverthematter,thedistrictcourtviolatedPetitioners’sovereign
immunityandgoverningfederallawholdingthattribalsovereignimmunityis
inviolateunlessCongressauthorizessuitorthereisanexpresswrittenwaiver
ofthatimmunity.ThispatentviolationoftheTribe’sandtribalofficials’
sovereignimmunitywillcontinueiftheDiscoveryOrderisallowedtostand
andgovernthescopeoffuturediscoveryinthiscase.
Third,thedistrictcourterroneouslypermittedJWGamingtopursue
discoveryrelatingtofraudandRICO,claimsbroughtagainsttheIndividual
TribalDefendants,whentheonlyclaimonwhichdiscoveryiscurrently
permittedinthedistrictcourtisaclaimforbreachofcontractagainstthe
Tribe.Indoingso,thedistrictcourtpermittedJWGamingtosurreptitiously
circumventboththeautomaticstaygoverningthetortclaimsandPetitioners’
sovereignimmunity.Inorderingdiscoveryonthisflawedbasis,thedistrict
courtactedoutsideitsauthorityandjurisdiction.
Fourth,inissuingtheDiscoveryOrderunderthecircumstancesand
withtheeffectsdescribedabove,thedistrictcourthasforcedPetitionersinto
anuntenablepositionwherebytheyarecompelledtoeithercomplywiththe
DiscoveryOrderandriskwaivingtheirsovereignimmunity,ortopursue—as
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 14 of 53
4
theyhave—repetitiveappealsontheissuetothedistrictcourt,themagistrate
judgeandthisCourtregardingthepermissiblescopeofdiscovery.This
defeatsthefundamentalpurposeoftribalsovereignimmunity,whichisto
protectagainstthecostsandburdensassociatedwithlitigationinvolving
nonconsensualclaims,andthepurposeoftheautomaticstayrequiredbythis
Circuit’sprecedents.Thistransgressionisonlyenhancedbythefactthat
PetitionershavealreadypursuedanappealinthisCourtontheveryclaims
anddefensesatissueinthisPetition.
Finally,becausethedistrictcourt(1)hasdemonstrablyfailedto
enforcethedistinctionbetweenthecontractclaimagainsttheTribe(whichis
notsubjecttothestay)andthefraudandRICOclaimsagainsttheIndividual
TribalDefendants(whicharesubjecttothestay);(2)failedtoabidebythe
automaticstaywithrespecttoclaimsanddefensesonappeal—namely,JW
Gaming’sfraudandRICOclaimsandPetitioners’sovereignimmunitydefense
tothoseclaims—orrespectthisCourt’sexclusivejurisdictionoverthose
claimspendingresolutionofPetitioners’Appeal;and(3)issuedanerroneous
orderwhichgovernsthescopeoffuturediscoveryintheaction;thisCourt
shouldorderanimmediatestayofalldiscoveryinthedistrictcourtpending
resolutionofthisPetitionand,ifthePetitionisgranted,untilresolutionofthe
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 15 of 53
5
Appeal.
Accordingly,theWritshouldissue.
II. StatementofSubjectMatterJurisdiction
ThisCourthasjurisdictionoverthisPetitionpursuanttotheAll
WritsAct,28U.S.C.§1651andRule21oftheFederalRulesofAppellate
Procedure.
III. ReliefSought
PetitionersrespectfullyrequestthatthisCourtrulethatthedistrict
court’sDiscoveryOrder(a)exceededthedistrictcourt’sjurisdictionby
requiringcontinuedlitigationofJWGaming’sfraudandRICOclaimsand
Petitioners’correspondingsovereignimmunitydefense,thusviolatingthe
automaticstayandthisCourt’sexclusivejurisdictionwithrespecttothose
issues;(b)violatedPetitioners’sovereignimmunity,whichremainseffective
untilafinalappellateorderrulesotherwise;and(c)shouldthereforebe
vacated.
PetitionersalsorespectfullyrequestthatthisCourtissuean
immediatestayofalldiscoveryinthedistrictcourt,includingdiscoveryonJW
Gaming’scontractclaim,pendingthedeterminationofthisPetitionand,ifthe
Petitionisgranted,untilsuchtimethattheAppealisdecided.
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 16 of 53
6
IV. TheIssuesPresented
A.Whetherthedistrictcourtexceededitsjurisdictionandviolated
Petitioners’sovereignimmunitybysubjectingaffiliatesofafederally‐
recognizedIndiantribetodiscoverydemandsthatpertaintoJWGaming’s
fraudandRICOclaims,whicharestayedpendingreviewbythisCourtinthe
Appeal,andthussubjecttothisCourt’sexclusivejurisdiction.
B.Whetherthedistrictcourtactedoutsideitsauthorityand
jurisdictionbyimposingadiscoveryorderthatmergedJWGaming’sfraud
claimandassertedreliefagainsttheIndividualTribalDefendants—forwhich
sovereignimmunityhasnotbeenwaivedandissubjecttotheAppeal—with
JWGaming’scontractclaimagainsttheTribe,thusallowingJWGamingand
thedistrictcourttousurpthisCourt’ssolejurisdictionoverclaimsand
defensesonAppealandviolatePetitioners’sovereignimmunity.
C. Whetherthedistrictcourtactedoutsideitsauthorityand
jurisdiction,andcontrarytofederallaw,byforcingPetitionersintoalegal
positionthatcompelsthemtowaivetheirsovereignimmunityinorderto
complywiththedistrictcourt’sDiscoveryOrder.
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 17 of 53
7
V. StatementofFactsNecessaryToUnderstandtheIssuesPresentedbythePetition
JWGamingfiledthissuitin2018againstthePetitioners,allegingsix
claimsforreliefarisingfromitsinvestmentintheTribe’splannedcasino
development.1App.10‐85.ThefirstclaimisagainsttheTribeandtheTribal
EntityDefendantsforbreachofanoteinfavorofJWGamingfor$5.38million
(the“2012Note”).1App.45‐47.Thesecondclaimisforfraud,1App.47‐56,
andthethirdthroughsixthclaimsareforviolationsoftheRacketeer
InfluencedandCorruptOrganizationsAct,18U.S.C.§1961(“RICO”).1App.
56‐84.Thesecondthroughsixthcausesofactionarebroughtagainstthe
IndividualTribalDefendantsonly.
Afterremovalfromstatecourt,Petitionersmovedtodismisstheclaims
againsttheIndividualTribalDefendantspursuanttoFed.R.Civ.P.12(b)(1)
onthebasisoftribalsovereignimmunity.1App.109.Petitionerscontended
thattheTribewastherealpartyininterestanditsimmunityfromsuitapplied
tobartheclaimsagainstthetribalofficialsandemployees.Id.Thedistrict
courtdeniedthemotiononOctober5,2018.1App.135‐47.Petitioners
thereafterfiledtheAppealonFebruary21,2019.
ThefilingofPetitioners’Appealautomaticallydivestedthedistrictcourt
ofjurisdictionoverthoseaspectsofthecaseonappeal.SeeGriggsv.Provident
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 18 of 53
8
ConsumerDiscountCo.,459U.S.56,58(1982).Inthecontextpresenthereof
aninterlocutoryappealofadefensebasedonimmunityfromsuit,theNinth
Circuitholdsthatthedistrictcourtisdivestedofjurisdictionunlessitfinds
Petitioners’claimofimmunityisfrivolousorhasbeenwaived,andcertifies
suchinwriting.SeeChumanv.Wright,960F.2d104,105(9thCir.1992);see
alsoAlaskav.UnitedStates,64F.3d1352,1354‐55(9thCir.1995)(“Without
suchcertification,thetrialisautomaticallydelayeduntildispositionofthe
appeal.”).Thedistrictcourtmadenosuchcertification,expresslyrulingthat
anyappealofthesovereignimmunityissuebyPetitionerswouldnotbe
frivolousandthatthedistrictcourt“willbedivestedofjurisdictioninthe
eventthat[Petitioners]fileanappealofthisdenialofthesovereignimmunity
defense.”1App.146.
FollowingPetitioners’AppealtothisCourt,Petitionersfiledinthe
districtcourtamotiontostaythecasependingresolutionoftheAppeal.1
App.148‐64.Attheoutset,PetitionersremindedthedistrictcourtthatJW’s
fraudandRICOclaimswereautomaticallystayedpendingtheAppeal.1App.
155.JWacknowledgedthisfact.1App.177.Assuch,thedistrictcourthadan
obligationtopreservethestatusquo,whichincludedPetitioners’rightto
sovereignimmunityunlessanduntilthisCourtdeniesPetitioners’Appeal.
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 19 of 53
9
Anticipatingthedifficultyindistinguishingbetweenthecontractandtort
claimsindiscovery,Petitionersalsorequestedthatthedistrictcourtexercise
itsdiscretiontostayallproceedingsrelatedtoJW’sbreachofcontractclaim,
whichistheonlyclaimnotsubjecttotheAppealorautomaticstay.1App.
155.Petitionersarguedtheirstronglikelihoodofsuccessonappealoftheir
tribalsovereignimmunitydefensebypointingoutthatthisCourtisnotlikely
toallowJWtobypassPetitioners’sovereignimmunityfromsuitsimplyby
namingtribalofficialsinanindividualcapacityonitsfraudandRICOclaims,
forwhichJWseeksnoseparatedamagesfromtheallegedbreachesofthose
tortandstatutoryduties,andwhereanadditionalremedysought—the
appointmentofareceiveroveralltribalaffairs—wouldoperateagainstthe
Tribeasopposedtotheindividualtribalofficials.1App.157‐59.Sucha
resultwouldextinguishthesovereignimmunityruleanditsprotections,
whichisforCongressalonetolimit.Id.
Additionally,Petitionersexplainedthattheyfaceapossibilityof
irreparableinjuryabsentastayofallproceedingsinthatallmoneyspent
defendingtheunderlyingactionpreventsPetitionersfromdedicatingits
alreadylimitedfinancialresourcestothehealthandwelfareofitstribal
members,creatingaveryrealpotentialforhumansuffering.1App.161‐62.
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 20 of 53
10
Furthermore,whileastaywouldhaveimposedzeroharmonJW,thestay
wouldhaveactuallyservedthepublicinterestinpreservingthelimited
jurisdictionoffederalcourtswherethebasisforjurisdictionissoattenuated.
1App.162‐64.Finally,Petitionersreasonedwiththedistrictcourtthat
efficiencyisnotservedbyallowingdiscoverytoproceedwhen(1)thedistrict
courtwillbeforcedtocloselyrefereediscoveryonthecontractclaimwhereit
mustbecarefullyseparatedoutfromthefraudandRICOclaims;and(2)the
districtcourtmayultimatelybedeprivedofitsjurisdictionovercertain
claims.1App.191.Afterahearing,thedistrictcourtdeniedPetitioners’
motionforstay.1App.204.
Subsequently,onMarch11,2019,JWGamingservedthird‐party
subpoenasonsevendifferententitieswithwhichtheTribedoesbusiness,
seekingproductionofvastamountsoffinancialrecordsspanningmorethana
decade.22App.213‐336.Petitionerssoughttoquashthesubpoenasbecause
theywereirrelevanttotheoneclaimpendinginthedistrictcourt(breachof
contract)andinsteadpertainedtothefraudandRICOclaimswhichwereon
appealandthereforestayedinthedistrictcourt.2App.205‐12.Forthefirst
time,JWassertedthatthedocumentssoughtinthesubpoenaswererelevant
2 ThiswasthethirdsetofdocumentsubpoenasJWGaminghadissued,havingpreviouslyissuedsubpoenasofasimilarnatureto14otherthirdparties.
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 21 of 53
11
toanequitableremedyitintendedtopursueforreformationofcontract,
whichappliedtothealleged“fraudormistakeatthetimeofcontracting,”and
wasthereforeapplicabletoitsbreachofcontractclaim.2App.210.
ToPetitioners’detriment,anddespiteitscautioningonthenecessityof
preventingJW’sdistinctclaimsfromblendingtogether,thedistrictcourt
allowedjustthatbyfailingtodistinguishinanywaybetweenJW’sfraudand
contractclaims.ItalsofailedtoappreciateJWGaming’sblatantsubterfugein
nowassertingthattheTribehadfraudulentlyinducedJWGamingtoenterthe
2012Note,wheninfacttheclaimforfraudulentinducementisagainstthe
IndividualTribalDefendantsonly.1App.47‐56.OnApril12,2019,thecourt
ruledthatJWGamingcouldproceedwithdiscoveryrelatingtoits
“reformationofcontractremedy,”allowingittoperformanimproperend‐run
aroundtheautomaticstayofitsfraudclaimandaccessmaterialsrelatedto
thatpreciseclaimundertheguiseofacontract‐relatedremedy.2App.337‐
338.
PetitionersimmediatelyobjectedtotheDiscoveryOrder.2App.340‐41
(requestingthatthedistrictcourtreconsideritsrulingonthediscovery
dispute).PetitionersalertedthedistrictcourttothefactthatJWGaming
neverallegesthattheTribefraudulentlyinducedittoenterthecontract,but
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 22 of 53
12
ratherthattheIndividualTribalDefendantsdidso.Id.Thispleadingdecision
wasdesignedtoavoidtherealitythattheTribedidnotwaivesovereign
immunitywithrespecttoanyfraudclaimsandthus,thisclaimwouldlikely
havebeendismissedonthatground.Id.Onlyinthecontextofthediscovery
disputedidJWGamingforthefirsttimeallegethattheTribe,ratherthanthe
IndividualTribalDefendants,fraudulentlyinducedittoenterthecontract,so
astoconnectitsfraudclaimwithitscontractclaimagainsttheTribe.Id.
Thedistrictcourtchosenottoaddressthisbrazenmaneuvertoskirt
Petitioners’sovereignimmunityandtheautomaticstay,butinsteadreferred
theissuetothemagistratejudge.Thepartiesonceagainbriefedtheissuefor
themagistrateonJune4,2019.2App.374‐79.Ratherthanaddressingthe
parties’arguments,themagistratejudgesimplyruledthathecouldnot
overturnthedistrictcourtjudge’spriorDiscoveryOrderandorderedthe
partiestoconferonmodifyingthethirdpartysubpoenas.2App.369.Asa
result,thedistrictcourt’sDiscoveryOrderpermittingJWGamingtodemand
productionofinformationrelatingtoitsfraudclaimstillstands.
JWGamingimmediatelyattemptedtocapitalizeonthiserroneous
ruling,issuingdiscoveryandseekingtotakethedepositionsofwitnesses
whosetestimonyrelatesonlytothefraudandRICOtheories.Forexample,in
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 23 of 53
13
requestsforadmissionissuedtotheTribe,JWGamingaskstheTribeto
“[a]dmitthatYOUdidnotreceiveaninvestmentofcash(orcashequivalent)
ofmorethan$5millionasconsiderationfortheSHAMCANALESNote.”2
App.352‐54(RFAs50,51‐63).Andinanotherrequest,itaskstheTribeto
“[a]dmitthatYOUintendedJWGamingDevelopmentLLCtorelyonthe
representationthatMichaelCanales(personallyorthroughanycompanyin
whichhehadanownershipinterest)hadinvestedover$5millionwithYOUin
JWGamingDevelopmentLLC’sdecisiontoentertheCOMPANY‐TRIBE2012
NOTE.”2App.355(RFA78).Theserequestsforadmission,andnumerous
othersposedtotheTribe,3relatetoJWGaming’sallegationsthatthe
IndividualTribalDefendantsfraudulentlyinducedJWGamingtoinvestinthe
casinoprojectbyrepresentingthatanotherbusinesspartnerhadpreviously
invested$5millioninthecasino,andproducingnotesthatevidencedthat
investment.1App.50(¶¶326‐27).Inotherwords,theyrelateexclusivelyto
thefraudandRICOclaims.Nocredibleargumentexiststhattheyrelatetothe
breachofcontractclaim,whichrequiresproofofstraightforwardelementsof
liabilityanddamages.
3See,e.g.,2App.350,352(RFAs27,42‐49).
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 24 of 53
14
IninterrogatoriesissuedtotheTribe,JWGamingaskstheTribeto
identifyfactswhich,again,arepotentiallyrelevantonlytothefraudandRICO
claims.IninterrogatoryNo.13,itaskstheTribeto“[i]dentifythedates,
nature,andamountofallconsiderationprovidedtoYOU,orforYOURbenefit,
asconsiderationfortheSHAM2012CANALESNOTESandSHAM2008
CANALESNOTE.”2App.364.Again,discoveryrequestssuchasthisrelateto
JWGaming’stheoryoffraudulentinducement—i.e.,thattheTribe’snotetoits
businesspartnerMichaelCanaleswasaruseintendedtoinduceJWto
invest—notaclaimbasedonfailuretopayanamountdueunderacontract.
TheTribe’sresponsestoJWGaming’srequestsforadmissionand
interrogatoriesarepresentlydueonJune26,2019.
Finally,undertheguiseof“noticingdepositionsonthefirstcauseof
action,”JWGaminghasrequestedtotakethedepositionsofeachofthe
thirteenIndividualTribalDefendants,includingindividualswhowerenoton
theTribalCouncilduringtherelevanttimeperiod,andindividualswhohold
noofficialpositionwithintheTribe.2App.367‐68.Forinstance,itseeksto
takethedepositionofJulianMaldonado,who,accordingtotheComplaint,is
anemployeeoftheTribeandcohabitatingpartnerofdefendantAngelaJames.
1App.15.Hehadabsolutelynoinvolvementinthenegotiation,executionor
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 25 of 53
15
performanceofthe2012Note.1App.10‐85.JulianMaldonadoandother
IndividualTribalDefendantsarenamedinthecasebecauseJWGamingclaims
theypossessknowledgeoffraudandracketeering,notbecausetheyhave
knowledgerelevanttothecontractclaim.
VI. ReasonsWhytheWritShouldIssue
Petitionersunderstandthat“mandamusisanextraordinaryremedy
thathastraditionallybeenusedinthefederalcourtsonlytoconfinean
inferiorcourttoalawfulexerciseofitsprescribedjurisdiction.”Taiwanv.U.S.
Dist.CourtfortheNorthernDist.ofCal.,128F.3d712,717(9thCir.1997)
(internalquotationsmarksomitted).However,eventheSupremeCourthas
nothesitatedtograntwritsofmandamusinthecontextofdiscoverywhenthe
districtcourt’sconstructionandapplicationofaruleoflawamountstoa
usurpationofpower.See,e.g.,Schlagenhaufv.Holder,379U.S.104,111‐12
(1964);LaBuyv.HowesLeatherCo.,352U.S.249,256(1957).Significantly,
thisCourtisevenmorelikelytograntawritofmandamuswhenthedistrict
court’sexerciseofpoweroutsideitsjurisdictiontramplesaparty’ssovereign
immunityrights.See,e.g.,CompaniaMexicanaDeAviacion,S.A.v.Dist.Court
forCent.Dist.ofCalifornia,859F.2d1354(9thCir.1988);Taiwanv.U.S.Dist.
CourtfortheNorthernDist.ofCal.,128F.3d712(9thCir.1997);Inre
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 26 of 53
16
PhilippineNationalBank,397F.3d768(9thCir.2005).Thus,thiscase
constitutesaclassicexamplewheretheremedyofmandamusisappropriate.
Indeterminingwhethertoissueawritofmandamus,thisCourtmust
balancethefollowingfive“Bauman”factors:“(1)whetherpetitionerhasno
otheradequatemeans...toattainthereliefdesired;(2)whetherpetitioner
willbedamagedorprejudicedinawaythatisnotcorrectableonappeal;(3)
whetherthedistrictcourt’sorderisclearlyerroneousasamatteroflaw;(4)
whetherthedistrictcourt’sorderisanoftrepeatederrorormanifests
persistentdisregardforthefederalrules;and(5)whetherthedistrictcourt’s
orderraisesnewandimportantproblemsorissuesoflawoffirstimpression.”
Id.Itisnotarequirementthatallfivefactorsbesatisfied,butthethirdfactor,
existenceofclearerror,isdispositive.Id.Assuch,Petitionersaddresseach
factorbelow,beginningwiththethirdBaumanfactor.
A. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderIsClearlyErroneousasaMatterofLaw.
Aspreviouslystated,Petitionershavenotchallengedthewaiverof
sovereignimmunitywithrespecttoJWGaming’sbreachofcontractclaim.
ButtheydidnotwaivesovereignimmunitywithrespecttoanyofJWGaming’s
otherclaims,includingfraudorRICO.Astothoseclaims,thedistrictcourt
rejectedPetitioners’sovereignimmunitydefense.However,thatdecisionwas
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 27 of 53
17
appealedtothisCourtonFebruary21,2019.Assuch,itisclearand
undisputablethatthefilingoftheAppeal“vestedexclusivejurisdiction”inthe
NinthCircuitand“divestedthedistrictcourtofjurisdictiontoproceed”with
respecttoallclaims,andmattersandproceedingsrelatedtothoseclaims,
appealed.UnitedStatesv.Claiborne,727F.2d842,844(9thCir.1984);
Hoffmanv.BeerDrivers&Salesmen’sLocalUnionNo.888,536F.2d1268,1276
(9thCir.1976)(“Thegeneralruleisthatanappealtothecircuitcourt
deprivesadistrictcourtofjurisdictionastoanymattersinvolvedinthe
appeal.”).
Moreover,itisclearandundisputablethatuntiltheNinthCircuit
rulesontheviabilityofPetitioners’sovereignimmunitydefense,the“status
quo”asitpertainstoPetitioners’sovereignimmunityrightsismaintainedand
notwaived,entitlingPetitionerstoitsprotectioninthedistrictcourtwith
respecttothoseclaimsappealed.SeeN.L.R.B.v.Sav‐onDrugs,Inc.,704F.2d
1147,1149(9thCir.1983)(“Staysarecommonlyusedtomaintainthestatus
quoduringanappealandthestatusquoveryobviouslyshouldhavebeen
maintainedinthiscase.”);Azurinv.VonRaab,792F.2d914,915(9thCir.
1986)(wheredistrictcourtwritdirectingreleaseofassetsinquestionwas
appealed,NinthCircuitgrantedastaypendingappealsothat“thestatusquo
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 28 of 53
18
willbemaintainedandtherewillbenodangerofdissipationoftheassets”);
KiowaTribeofOklahomav.ManufacturingTechs.,Inc.,523U.S.751,754
(1998)(“Asamatteroffederallaw,anIndiantribeissubjecttosuitonly
whereCongresshasauthorizedthesuitorthetribehaswaivedimmunity.”);
seealsoMillerv.Wright,705F.3d393,923‐24(9thCir.2013)(“waiversof
tribalsovereignimmunitymustbeexplicitandunequivocal.”).
Finally,adistrictcourtmaynot“implementorenforcethejudgment
ororder”appealedwhereastayisinplace.InreRains,428F.3d893,904(9th
Cir.2005).Forallthesereasons,setforthinmoredetailbelow,itis
undeniablethatthedistrictcourt’sDiscoveryOrderisclearlyerroneousasa
matteroflaw.
1. TheDistrictCourtLacksJurisdictiontoProceedwithLitigationofMattersonAppealandtheDistrictCourtDidExactlyThat,IncludingViolatingPetitioners’SovereignImmunity.
Theonlyclaimoverwhichthedistrictcourtcurrentlyhasjurisdictionis
JWGaming’sbreachofcontractclaim.ThefraudandRICOclaims,and
Petitioners’correspondingsovereignimmunitydefense,arecurrently
pendingappellatereviewandthus,arepresentlyoutsidethejurisdictionof
thedistrictcourt.Claiborne,727F.2dat844,850(whenaclaimisconsidered
immediatelyappealable,“thedistrictcourtlosesitspowertoproceedfrom
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 29 of 53
19
thetimethe[party]filesitsnoticeofappealuntiltheappealisresolved.”).
PetitionershavenotwaivedtheirsovereignimmunitytothefraudandRICO
claimsandunlessanduntilthereisafinalrulingbythisCourtthatPetitioners
arenotentitledtosuchimmunity,thestatusquoofaffordingPetitioners
protectionagainsttheburdensoflitigationremainsineffect.SeeN.L.R.B,704
F.2dat1149;Azurin,792F.2dat915;KiowaTribeofOklahoma,523U.S.at
754;seealsoMiller,705F.3dat923‐24.Asexplainedbelow,thedistrictcourt
hasdisregardedthislong‐standingdoctrineoftribalsovereignimmunity,as
wellasitsownlackofjurisdiction,byacceptingJWGaming’snewtheoryof
reliefintendedtobypasstheautomaticstayofitsfraudandRICOclaims.
Initspleadings,JWGamingcarefullydistinguishedbetween
allegationsagainsttheTribeandallegationsagainsttheIndividualTribal
Defendants.RelevanttothisPetition,JWGamingallegedthattheIndividual
TribalDefendants,nottheTribe,fraudulentlyinducedittoenterthecontract.
ItfurtherallegedthattheTribebreachedthecontractbyfailingthusfarto
repaytheloan.Thispleadingdecisionwasintentionallycalculatedtoavoid
thefactthatwhiletheTribemayhavewaivedsovereignimmunitywith
respecttothecontractclaim,ithadnotwaivedimmunitywithrespecttoany
fraudclaims,thusavoidingapotentialdismissalofsuchaclaimaimedatthe
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 30 of 53
20
Tribe.AfterthedistrictcourtruledagainstPetitioners’sovereignimmunity
defensetotheallegedfraud,JWGamingreverseditspositionandforthefirst
timeintheunderlyingdiscoverydisputeallegedthatitwastheTribethat
fraudulentlyinducedJWtoenterthecontract.2App.210.Theclearpurpose
ofthisstrategywastoconnectJWGaming’sstayedfraudclaimwithitsstill
activecontractclaimagainsttheTribe,therebyallowingJWGamingto
furtivelypursuediscoveryonthefraudclaim,outsidethedistrictcourt’s
jurisdictionandinstarkviolationofPetitioners’sovereignimmunity.
InitsDiscoveryOrder,thedistrictcourterroneouslyadoptedJW
Gaming’stheoryastowhyitwasentitledtodiscoverypertainingtofraud,
despitePetitioners’sovereignimmunity.Specifically,JWarguedthatthe
discoverypertainedtoits(newly‐devised)equitableremedyforreformation
ofcontract,aremedyitneverpleadedinitsComplaintormentionedinprior
pleadings.InitsDiscoveryOrder,thedistrictcourtovertlyconflatedJW
Gaming’sbreachofcontractclaimwithitsfraudclaim,stating“JWGaming
allegesthattheTribefraudulentlyinduceditsassenttotheparties’contract
byrepresentingthatitwasmatchinganinvestmentfromtheCanalesGroup,
whennosuchinvestmenthadactuallybeenmade.Becausethereformation
remedyisbasedon‘fraud...atthetimeofcontracting,’JWGamingisentitled
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 31 of 53
21
todiscoveryoffinancialdocumentsupuntilthetimethatitinvestedinthe
casinoproject.”2App.337‐38.Indoingso,thedistrictcourtconflatedthe
tortcauseofactionforfraudasitpertainstothecontract,withthecontract
causeofactionforbreachofcontract.
Asaninitialmatter,simplybecausefraudulentinducementmay
occuratthetimeofcontracting(1)doesnotmakeitacontract‐basedclaim,
and(2)doesnotmakeitanylessofatortclaim.SeeBellv.FederalHomeLoan
MortgageCorp.,No.11‐CV‐2514‐MMA,2012WL4576584,at*3(S.D.Cal.Oct.
1,2012)(“Thetortoffraudulentinducementtoenteracontract,alsoknownas
promissoryfraud,isa‘subspeciesoftheactionforfraudanddeceit’andlies
‘whereadefendantfraudulentlyinducesaplaintifftoenterintoacontract.’”
(emphasisadded)(quotingLazarv.SuperiorCourt,909P.2d981,985(Cal.
1996))).Thedistrictcourtconflatedthetwouniquecausesofactioninaway
thatallowedthedistrictcourtandJWGamingtobypassPetitioners’sovereign
immunitywithrespecttothefraudclaimbymorphingitintoacontract‐based
claim—theonlyclaimonwhichdiscoverypresentlymaybesought.By
orderingdiscoveryrelatedtothefraudclaimdespitePetitioners’asserted
sovereignimmunity,thedistrictcourteffectivelyandimproperly(1)
“adjudicate[d][Petitioners’]substantialright[]directlyinvolvedinthe
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 32 of 53
22
appeal”and(2)soughttoenforceitsorderrejectingPetitioners’sovereign
immunity,despitetheautomaticstay.Johnsonv.B.H.LiquidationCorp.,17
F.3d394,1994WL41116,at*3(9thCir.Feb.10,1994)(“Generally,thefiling
ofanoticeofappealdiveststhedistrictcourtofjurisdictionoverthematters
appealed.Thus,althoughthedistrictcourtretainstherighttodecidematters
necessarytopreservethestatusquowhilethecaseispendingonappeal,‘it
maynotfinallyadjudicatesubstantialrightsdirectlyinvolvedintheappeal.’”
(quotingMcClatchyNewspapersv.CentralValleyTypographicalUnion,686
F.2d731,734,735(9thCir.1982)));PyrodyneCorp.v.PyrotronicsCorp.,847
F.2d1398,1403(9thCir.1988)(same);InreRains,428F.3dat904.Contrary
tothedistrictcourt’saction,theonlyordersdistrictcourtsarepermittedto
makeregardinganissueonappealarethose“ordersappropriatetopreserve
thestatusquowhilethecaseispendingintheappellatecourt.”U.S.v.El‐O‐
PathicPharmacy,192F.2d62,79(9thCir.1951).TheDiscoveryOrder
undoubtedlydisruptsthestatusquoandeffectivelyenforcesthedistrict
court’srulingregardingtheclaimsanddefensesonAppeal.
Petitionerswillnotrepeattheirpendingappellateargumentsasto
whytheyareentitledtosovereignimmunityonJWGaming’sfraudandRICO
claims.However,itisvitalinthisPetitiontoaddressthehistoryand
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 33 of 53
23
importanceofthedoctrineofsovereignimmunitythatwasviolatedbythe
districtcourt.
Indian tribes are domestic dependent nations thatexerciseinherentsovereignauthority.[T]heyremainseparate sovereigns pre‐existing the Constitution.Thus,unlessanduntilCongressacts,thetribesretaintheir historic sovereign authority. Among the coreaspectsofsovereigntythattribespossess—subject[]to congressional action—is the common‐lawimmunityfromsuittraditionallyenjoyedbysovereignpowers.Thatimmunity...isanecessarycorollarytoIndian sovereignty and self‐governance. [A]nenduringprincipleofIndianlaw[is]...courtswillnotlightly assume that Congress in fact intends toundermineIndianself‐government.
Michiganv.BayMillsIndianCommunity,572U.S.782,788‐90(2014)(internal
quotationmarksandcitationsomitted);seeSantaClaraPueblov.Martinez,
436U.S.49,55‐58(1978)(as“distinct,independentpoliticalcommunities,
retainingtheiroriginalnaturalrightsinmattersoflocalself‐government...
Indiantribeshavelongbeenrecognizedaspossessingthecommon‐law
immunityfromsuittraditionallyenjoyedbysovereignpowers.”).Basedon
theaboveprinciples,“[t]ribalsovereignimmunityprotectsIndiantribesfrom
suitabsentexpressauthorizationbyCongressoraclearwaiverofthetribe....
[T]hesettledlawof[theNinthCircuit]isthattribalcorporationsactingasan
armofthetribeenjoythesamesovereignimmunitygrantedtothetribe
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 34 of 53
24
itself.”Millerv.Wright,705F.3d393,923‐24(9thCir.2013).Moreover,
“waiversoftribalsovereignimmunitymustbeexplicitandunequivocal.”Id.;
KiowaTribeofOklahomav.ManufacturingTechs.,Inc.,523U.S.751,754
(1998)(“Asamatteroffederallaw,anIndiantribeissubjecttosuitonly
whereCongresshasauthorizedthesuitorthetribehaswaivedimmunity.”).
Tribalsovereignimmunityalso“extendstotribalofficialswhenactingintheir
capacityandwithinthescopeoftheirauthority.”Id.at928.Finally,
“sovereignimmunityisanimmunityfromtrialandtheattendantburdensof
litigation,andnotjustadefensetoliabilityonthemerits.”Petersonv.Islamic
RepublicofIran,627F.3d1117,1127(9thCir.2010).
Althoughthedistrictcourtdisregardedtheseclear,longstanding
principlesininitiallyrejectingPetitioners’sovereignimmunitydefensetothe
fraudandRICOclaims,oncethevalidityofthisdefensewasonappeal,not
onlywasthedistrictcourtdivestedofitsjurisdictionovertherelevantclaims,
thestatusquoofPetitioners’sovereignimmunitywaspreservedunlessand
untilsuchtimeasthisCourtrulesotherwise.SeeN.L.R.B,704F.2dat1149;
Azurin,792F.2dat915.BecausePetitioners’sovereignimmunitywasintact
atthetimethedistrictcourtissueditsDiscoveryOrder,thatordergranting
JWGamingdiscoveryrightsonitsfraudulentinducementclaimwasablatant
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 35 of 53
25
violationofPetitioners’sovereignimmunity.
Inaddition,theDiscoveryOrderwasaclearviolationofthe
automaticstayandthisCourt’sexclusivejurisdictionovertheclaimsand
defensesonappeal.Claiborne,727F.2dat844,850.Moreover,thedistrict
courthasputPetitionersinanuntenablepositionwherebycompliancewith
theDiscoveryOrderorthependingdiscoveryrequestsdirectedtotheTribe
mayconstituteanunintendedwaiverofPetitioners’sovereignimmunitywith
respecttoJWGaming’sfraudclaim.Forallthesereasons,thedistrictcourt
undeniablyactedoutsideitsjurisdictionandauthorityanditsDiscovery
Orderisclearlyerroneousasamatteroflaw.
B. PetitionersHaveNoOtherAdequateMeanstoReliefandPetitionersWillBeDamagedandPrejudicedInaWayNotCorrectableonAppeal.
Petitionershavenootheradequatemeanstoattainthereliefsoughtby
thisPetitionandwillbeirreparablydamagedandprejudicedwithoutthis
Court’sintervention.Petitionersalreadyhavesoughtreconsiderationofthe
DiscoveryOrderinthedistrictcourtbymeansofarequestedstayofallclaims
pendingresolutionoftheAppealaswellaswrittenargumentstoboththe
districtcourtandthemagistratejudgeonthediscoverydisputeand
correspondingDiscoveryOrder.ThedistrictcourtdeniedallofPetitioners’
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 36 of 53
26
attemptstopreservethestatusquo,itssovereignimmunity,theautomatic
stayandthisCourt’sjurisdiction.See1App.204;2App.337‐38.The
magistratejudgesimplyupheldthedistrictcourt’sDiscoveryOrderwithout
considerationonthemerits.2App.369.Oncetheseattemptstorequirecourt
compliancewithfederaltriballaw,jurisdictionallawandtheautomaticstay
failed,Petitioners’handsbecametied.
First,theDiscoveryOrderiseffectivelyunreviewableonappealfroma
finaljudgmentinthedistrictcourtbecausereviewatthatstagewouldbe
whollyinsufficienttoprotectPetitioners’sovereignimmunity.Afterafinal
judgment,nocourtcanundothedisclosureofdocumentsproducedin
accordancewiththeerroneousDiscoveryOrder.Moreover,productionof
suchdocumentscouldbeviewedasanunintendedbutpotentiallyeffective
waiverofsovereignimmunityastoJWGaming’sfraudclaim,whichcouldthen
irreparablyprejudicePetitionersbynegatingtheirdefenseonAppeal.
Second,nocourtcanundothecostsandburdensoflitigationif
Petitionersareforcedtocontinuetolitigateclaimsagainstwhichitshouldbe
protectedbysovereignimmunity.SeeInrePapandreou,139F.3d247,251
(D.C.Cir.1998)(“petitioners’immunityclaimhasspecialcharacteristics....
Theinflictionof[litigation]burdensmaycompromiseitjustasclearlyas
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 37 of 53
27
wouldanultimatedeterminationofliability”).Asitstands,thetimeand
moneyPetitionershaveexpendedlitigatingthis“discovery”disputehave
hamperedtheminthetaskofgoverningontribalmatters.Thesearethevery
burdenswhichtribalsovereignimmunityisintendedtoavoid.Thisharmwill
onlyincreaseshouldPetitionersbeforcedtocontinuetolitigateclaims
subjecttotheirsovereignimmunityand/orAppeal.
Finally,analternativemethodtoreliefunderwhichPetitionersdisobey
theDiscoveryOrderandsubjectthemselvestoasubsequent,appealable
contemptorderisanunacceptablepositioninwhichtoputasovereignentity.
Seeid.(appealingacontemptorderis“notgoodenough”foranimmunity
claim).ThisPetitionisthePetitioners’lastresort.
C. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderManifestsPersistentDisregardfortheFederalRules.ForthereasonssetforthinSectionVI.Aabove,thedistrictcourt’s
orderdemonstratesadisregardforthefederalrulesandinparticularthe
automaticstayimposedasamatteroflaw.Asaninitialmatter,indenying
Petitioners’motiontodismiss,thedistrictcourtevincedalackofappreciation
forthedoctrineoftribalsovereignimmunity.Thedistrictcourtthen
disregardedthefederalrulesofcivilprocedurebypermittingJWGamingto
reconstructitsoriginalfraudallegationstoalignthemwithitsbreachof
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 38 of 53
28
contractclaimssoastocircumventPetitioners’sovereignimmunityandseek
discoveryonmatterssubjecttoanautomaticstayandoutsidethecourt’s
jurisdiction.Evenmoredetrimentally,thedistrictcourtthenadoptedJW
Gaming’stheorydevisedthroughgamesmanship,whicheitherneglectedor
dismissedtheclearlegallinesbetweentortandcontractcausesofactionby
conflatingJWGaming’sclaimwhichisoutsidethedistrictcourt’sjurisdiction
(fraud),withJW’sclaimwhichissubjecttothedistrictcourt’sjurisdiction
(breachofcontract).ThisallowedJWGamingtobypasstheimpedimentsto
proceedingwithlitigationonitsfraudclaimandcontinuetopursuebroadand
intrusivediscoveryincontraventionofPetitioners’sovereignimmunity.
Additionally,requiringdiscoveryonaclaimanddefensesubjecttoappeal,
whichinturnhasrequiredthefilingofthisPetition,defeatsthepurposeofthe
automaticstay“toholdthematterunderreviewinabeyancebecausethe
appellatecourtlackssufficienttimetodecidethemerits,”Leiva‐Perezv.
Holder,640F.3d962,967(9thCir.2011),“tominimizeexpensetotheparties
andtoavoidtheduplicationofworkandtimeexpendedbythis[C]ourt,”and
tomaintainthestatusquooftheparties’rightsuntilresolutionoftheAppeal.
TownofNorthBonneville,Wash.V.U.S.Dist.Court,WesternDist.ofWashington,
732F.2d747,749(9thCir.1984);seeN.L.R.B,704F.2dat1149;Azurin,792
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 39 of 53
29
F.2dat915.Finally,thedistrictcourt’sDiscoveryOrderhadtheeffectof
adjudicatingPetitioners’substantialrightsaswellasseekingtoenforceits
orderthatisthesubjectoftheAppeal,neitherofwhicharepermissibleunder
federallaw.Johnsonv.B.H.LiquidationCorp.,17F.3d394,1994WL41116,at
*3(9thCir.Feb.10,1994);InreRains,428F.3d893,904(9thCir.2005).
Thedistrictcourt’srefusaltoreconsidersuchseriousviolationsof
federallaw—includingtribalsovereignimmunity,federalappellate
jurisdictionandthedistrictcourt’sownresultantlackofjurisdictionoverthe
claimsforwhichitnowordersdiscovery—showsthatithasdisregarded
federallawinthecircumstancesofthiscase.
D. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderRaisesNewandImportantProblemsorIssuesofLawofFirstImpression.
Uponinformationandbelief,thedistrictcourt’sDiscoveryOrder
raisesissuesoflawoffirstimpressionintheNinthCircuit.Attheveryleast,
itraisesimportantproblemsregardingextra‐judicialproceedingsand
violationsoffederallaw,includingtribalsovereignimmunity,warranting
NinthCircuitinterventionthroughawritofmandamus.
Historically,theNinthCircuithasissuedwritsofmandamuswhere
thedistrictcourterroneouslydeniedPetitionerstheirrightstoforeign
sovereignimmunity.See,e.g.,CompaniaMexicanaDeAviacion,S.A.v.Dist.
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 40 of 53
30
CourtforCent.Dist.ofCalifornia,859F.2d1354(9thCir.1988);Taiwanv.U.S.
Dist.CourtfortheNorthernDist.ofCal.,128F.3d712(9thCir.1997);Inre
PhilippineNationalBank,397F.3d768(9thCir.2005).However,Petitioners
areunabletoidentifyasinglecaseinwhichtheNinthCircuithasruledon
tribalsovereignimmunity,oradistrictcourt’sconsequentlackof
jurisdiction,inthecontextofatribe’swritofmandamuspetition.Incases
outsideofthiscontext,thisCourtexpressedaclearunderstandingofhow
crucialitisforatribetomaintainitssovereignimmunity.Seee.g.,PitRiver
HomeandAgr.Co‐opAss’nv.U.S.,30F.3d1088(9thCir.1994)(dismissing
casewheretribalcouncilcouldnotbejoinedasanindispensablepartydueto
itssovereignimmunityandholdingthattoforceinterventionwouldrequire
waiverofsovereignimmunityandthetribalcouncil’sinterestinmaintaining
sovereignimmunityoutweighedotherparty’sinterestinlitigatingitsclaims).
Assuch,thedistrictcourt’scircumventionofPetitioners’tribal
sovereignimmunity—bothpresentlyvalidandsubjecttothisCourt’s
exclusivejurisdiction—bywayofmerginginaDiscoveryOrderatortclaim
subjecttoanappellatestaywithacontractclaimnotsubjecttothestay,
certainlypresentsauniquefactpattern,tribalsovereignimmunityissuesand
otherjurisdictionalissuesoflawoffirstimpressioninthisCourt.Atthevery
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 41 of 53
31
least,thesituationfacingPetitionersasaresultoftheDiscoveryOrder
presentsmeaningfulproblemsregardingPetitioners’abilitytoexercisetheir
tribalsovereignimmunitytoclaimstheyhavealreadyappealed,aswellas
thejurisdictionalandproceduralchaosthatthedistrictcourthascreatedby
removinganycertaintythatclaimssubjecttotheautomaticstayandthis
Court’sunsharedjurisdictionwillbesafeguardedfromlitigationpending
resolutionofPetitioners’Appeal.
VII. AllDiscoveryintheDistrictCourtShouldBeStayedPendingResolutionofThisPetition.
PetitionersalsoasksthisCourttoinvokeitsauthorityundertheAll
WritsAct,28U.S.C.§1651,toimmediatelystayalldiscoverywhileit
considersthismandamuspetition.Seealso9thCir.GeneralOrder6.8(a)
(motionspanel“mayalsoissueastayorinjunctionpendingfurther
considerationoftheapplication”).Whethertoissueastayis“anexerciseof
judicialdiscretion...tobeguidedbysoundlegalprinciples,”Nkenv.Holder,
556U.S.418,433‐34(2009)(internalquotationmarksomitted),basedon
fourfactors:(1)applicant’slikelysuccessonthemerits;(2)irreparableinjury
totheapplicantabsentastay;(3)substantialinjurytotheotherparties;and
(4)thepublicinterest.Hiltonv.Braunskill,481U.S.770,776(1987);seealso
Leiva‐Perezv.Holder,640F.3d962,970(9thCir.2011)(Nkenrequiresa
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 42 of 53
32
showingofirreparableharm,butappliesabalancingtestshowing“that
irreparableharmisprobableandeither:(a)astronglikelihoodofsuccesson
themeritsandthatthepublicinterestdoesnotweighheavilyagainstastay;
or(b)asubstantialcaseonthemeritsandthatthebalanceofhardshipstips
sharplyinthepetitioner’sfavor”).Eachofthesefactorscounselsinfavorofa
stay.
TheargumentssetoutaboveshowthatPetitionershaveastrong
likelihoodofsuccessinobtainingmandamus.Absentastay,Petitionerswill
beirreparablyharmedbybeingforcedtoproceedwithburdensomediscovery
thatwas(i)propoundedintheabsenceofjurisdiction,(ii)inviolationofthe
automaticstay,and(iii)incontraventionofPetitioners’sovereignimmunity.
Mostimmediately,Petitionersmustserveresponsesto96requestsfor
admissionand14interrogatories,alargenumberofwhichseekinformation
relatingtotheclaimsonappeal,byJune26.2App.345‐59;360‐66.JW
GaminghasalsorequestedtotakethedepositionsoftheIndividualTribal
Defendantsinviolationoftheautomaticstayandthoseofficials’and
employees’sovereignimmunity.2App.367‐68.
Astayofproceedingsduringthependencyofthismandamuspetitionis
notlikelytoappreciablyharmJWGaming.TheAppealhasnotyetbeen
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 43 of 53
33
decidedandnotrialdateisset.Finally,thepublicintereststronglyfavorsa
stay,becauseabsentsuchreliefthePetitioners,includingmembersofthe
governingtribalcounciloftheTribe,willbesubjecttocontinuedunlawful
discoveryandforcedtodivertsubstantialresourcesawayfromtheiressential
governmentfunctions.Giventheimpendingdiscoverydeadlines,Petitioners
respectfullyrequestanexpeditedrulingfromthisCourtonthisrequestfora
stayandanimmediateadministrativestaywhiletheCourtconsidersthe
Petitioners’stayrequest.
VIII. IntheAlternative,ThisPetitionShouldBeTreatedasaCohenAppeal
ShouldthisCourtconcludethatawritofmandamusshouldnotissue,
PetitionersrespectfullyrequestthisPetitionbetreatedasanappealofthe
DiscoveryOrderunderCohenv.BeneficialIndustrialLoanCorp.,337U.S.541
(1949)(“Cohen”).ThisCourthasconvertedpetitionsforwritofmandamus
intoappealsinthepast.See,e.g.,CompaniaMexicanaDeAviacion,S.A.v.U.S.
Dist.CourtforCent.Dist.ofCalifornia,859F.2d1354,1357(9thCir.1988)
(“Althoughmandamusnormallymaynotsubstituteforanappeal,[theNinth
CircuitCourtofAppealshas]sometimesconstruedpetitionsforwritof
mandamusasnoticesofappeal.”(citingcases).Moreover,thereismeaningful
overlapintherequirementsforawritofmandamusandthoseofaCohen
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 44 of 53
34
appeal.ToqualifyforimmediateappealunderCohen,(1)“theordermust
conclusivelydeterminethedisputedquestion,”(2)“resolveanimportant
issuecompletelyseparatefromthemeritsoftheaction,”and(3)“be
effectivelyunreviewableonappealfromafinaljudgment.”InreCement
AntitrustLitigation,673F.2d1020,1022(9thCir.1981)(quotingFirestone
Tire&RubberCo.v.Risjord,449U.S.368,375(1981)).Thisstandardiseasily
satisfiedhere.
A. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderConclusivelyDeterminestheDisputedQuestion.Thedisputedquestioninthediscoverydisputeinthedistrictcourtis
whetherJWGamingisentitledtodiscoveryrelevanttoitsreformationof
contractremedy.TheDiscoveryOrderrulesthatitis.2App.337‐38.
Becausethemagistratedeclinedtodisturbthisruling,theorderconclusively
determinesthatJWisentitledtodiscoveryonitsfraudulentinducement
claim,andJWhasproceededtoissuediscoveryinconformitytherewith.
B. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderResolvesanImportantIssueSeparateFromtheMeritsoftheAction.
TheDiscoveryOrderresolvesadiscoveryissueandcreates
jurisdictionalissues,whicharedistinctfromthemeritsoftheaction.The
discoveryissueisimportantbecauseofitsimplicitresults.AsnotedinSection
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 45 of 53
35
V,supra,theerroneousrulinghasemboldenedJWGamingtoissuebroadand
intrusivewrittendiscoveryrelatingtothefraudandRICOclaims.Ithasalso
promptedJWGaming’scounseltoseekthedepositiontestimonyofeachofthe
IndividualDefendantswhenonlyalimitednumberofthosedefendantshave
relevantknowledgeofthecontractclaim.Further,becausethefraudclaimis
subjecttoanautomaticstaypendingresolutionofPetitioners’Appeal,the
resultsoftheDiscoveryOrderraisecrucialjurisdictionalissues,including(1)
circumventionofPetitioners’sovereignimmunitybyimplicitlyrulingfora
secondtimethatPetitionersarenotentitledtosuchimmunityonJWGaming’s
fraudclaim—theveryrulingsubjecttotheAppeal,(2)atacit,butapparent,
rulingthatthefraudclaimisjurisdictionallylinkedtothecontractclaim,thus
negatingPetitioners’Appeal,(3)violationoftheautomaticstayandthis
Court’sexclusivejurisdictionovermattersonappeal,and(4)thescopeof
discoveryonaclaimwithinthedistrictcourt’sjurisdictionwhilerelated
claimsareonappealandthusoutsideitsjurisdiction.SeeSectionVI.A,supra.
Whilethesemaynothavebeentheintendedissuestobe“resolved”bythe
districtcourt,theconsequencesoftheDiscoveryOrderareinescapableabsent
interventionbythisCourt.
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 46 of 53
36
C. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderisEffectivelyUnreviewableonAppealfromaFinalJudgment.
ForallthereasonssetforthinSectionVI.B,supra,theDiscovery
Orderiseffectivelyunreviewableonappealfromafinaljudgment.
IX. Conclusion
Foralltheforegoingreasons,Petitionersrespectfullyrequestthat
thisCourtgranttheirpetitionforawritofmandamus,orinthealternative,
grantPetitioners’Cohenappeal;directthedistrictcourttovacateits
DiscoveryOrder;andissueastayofalldiscoveryinthedistrictcourtpending
thedeterminationofthisPetitionand,ifthePetitionisgranted,untilsuch
timethattheAppealisdecided.
Respectfully submitted this 17th day of June, 2019.
BERG HILL GREENLEAF RUSCITTI LLP
s/ Rudy E. Verner
RudyE.Verner 1712PearlStreet
Boulder,CO80302p.(303)402‐1600
[email protected] Counselfor Petitioners
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 47 of 53
37
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
There is one related case within the meaning of Circuit Rule 28-2.6, namely,
Defendants’ prior Appeal from the Judgment of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California: JW Gaming Development, LLC v. Angela
James, et al. (9th Cir. 2018) (No. 18-17008).
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 48 of 53
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Form 17. Statement of Related Cases Pursuant to Circuit Rule 28-2.6Instructions for this form: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form17instructions.pdf
9th Cir. Case Number(s)
The undersigned attorney or self-represented party states the following:
I am unaware of any related cases currently pending in this court.
I am unaware of any related cases currently pending in this court other than the case(s) identified in the initial brief(s) filed by the other party or parties.
I am aware of one or more related cases currently pending in this court. The case number and name of each related case and its relationship to this case are:
Feedback or questions about this form? Email us at [email protected]
Form 17 New 12/01/2018
Signature Date(use “s/[typed name]” to sign electronically-filed documents)
18-17008
Case No. 18-17008; JW Gaming Development, LLC v. Angela James; Leona L. Williams; Michael R. Canales; Melissa M. Canales; John Tang; Pinoleville Pomo Nation; Pinoleville Gaming Authority; Pinoleville Gaming Commission; Pinoleville Business Board; Pinoleville Economic Development, LLC; Lenora Steele; Kathy Stallworth; Michelle Campbell; Julian J. Maldonado; Donald D. Williams; Veronica Timberlake; Cassandra Steele; Jason Edward Running Bear Steele; Andrew Stevenson; Canales Group, LLC; Lori J. Canales; Kelly L. Canales; and Does 1 through 20
s/ Rudy E. Verner, Esq. Jun 17, 2019
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 49 of 53
38
CERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCE
IamtheattorneyforPetitioners.
Thisbriefcontains7,790wordsincompliancewiththewordlimitset
forthinFed.R.App.P.21(d)(1),excludingtheitemsexemptedbyFed.R.App.
P.21(a)(2)(C)andFed.R.App.P.32(f).Thebrief’stypeandsizeandtypeface
complywithFed.R.App.P.32(a)(5)and(6).
s/RudyE.Verner ______________________________ RudyE.Verner
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 50 of 53
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Form 8. Certificate of Compliance for BriefsInstructions for this form: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/forms/form08instructions.pdf
9th Cir. Case Number(s)
I am the attorney or self-represented party.
This brief contains words, excluding the items exempted
by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f). The brief’s type size and typeface comply with Fed. R.
App. P. 32(a)(5) and (6).
I certify that this brief (select only one):
complies with the word limit of Cir. R. 32-1.is a cross-appeal brief and complies with the word limit of Cir. R. 28.1-1.
is an amicus brief and complies with the word limit of Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(5), Cir. R. 29-2(c)(2), or Cir. R. 29-2(c)(3).
is for a death penalty case and complies with the word limit of Cir. R. 32-4.
complies with the longer length limit permitted by Cir. R. 32-2(b) because (select only one):
complies with the length limit designated by court order dated .
is accompanied by a motion to file a longer brief pursuant to Cir. R. 32-2(a).
it is a joint brief submitted by separately represented parties; a party or parties are filing a single brief in response to multiple briefs; ora party or parties are filing a single brief in response to a longer joint brief.
Signature Date(use “s/[typed name]” to sign electronically-filed documents)
Feedback or questions about this form? Email us at [email protected]
Form 8 Rev. 12/01/2018
19-
7,790
/s Rudy E. Verner, Esq. Jun 17, 2019
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 51 of 53
39
CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE IherebycertifythatIelectronicallyfiledtheforegoingwiththeClerkof
theCourtfortheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuitbyusing
theappellateCM/ECFsystemonJune17,2019.
IfurthercertifythatonJune17,2019,anoticeofthefilingofthe
foregoing(includingacompletecopyoftheforegoing)willbefiledin
underlyingproceedingintheUnitedStateDistrictCourtfortheNorthern
DistrictofCaliforniaincompliancewithFederalRuleofAppellateProcedure
21(a)(1),andthatallpartiestotheproceedingwillbeservedwiththatnotice
throughthedistrictcourt’sCM/ECFsystem.Inaddition,acourtesycopyof
theforegoinghasbeenprovidedviae‐mailtothefollowingcounselfor
Plaintiff.
RespondentJWGamingDevelopment,LLCGregoryM.NarvaezJohnM.PeeblesTimHennessyFredericksPeebles&MorganLLP2020LStreet,Suite250Sacramento,CA95811
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 52 of 53
40
DATED:June17,2019 s/RudyVerner _________________________ RudyE.Verner BergHillGreenleafRuscittiLLP
1712PearlStreetBoulder,CO80302p.(303)402‐1600
Case: 19-71522, 06/17/2019, ID: 11335032, DktEntry: 2, Page 53 of 53