Bishop Paiute Tribe v. Newsom

1 ROB BONTA Attorney General of California T. MICHELLE LAIRD Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General LISA L. FREUND, State Bar No. 249174 NOEL A. FISCHER, State Bar No. 232553 Deputy Attorney General West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 P.O. Box 85266 San Diego, CA 92186-5266 Telephone: (619) 738-9133 Fax: (619) 645-2271 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants LAW OFFICE OF FRANK LAWRENCE FRANK LAWRENCE, State Bar No. 147531 ZEHAVA ZEVIT, State Bar No. 230600 Sutton Way, No. 246 11 Grass Valley, CA 95945 Telephone: (530) 362-8434 E-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE, a federally 1:20-cv-01318-ADA-SKO recognized Indian tribal government, Plaintiff, 19 JOINT STIPULATION FOR v. APPOINTMENT OF MEDIATOR 20 SCOTT BALES; ORDER GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State (Doc. 61) of California, and the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 23 Defendants.

1 Frank Lawrence and Zehava Zevit, attorneys of record for plaintiff Bishop Paiute Tribe, a federally recognized Indian Tribe (Plaintiff), on the one hand, and Noel A. Fischer and Lisa L.

3 Freund, Deputy Attorneys General, attorneys for defendants Governor Gavin Newsom, in his official capacity as Governor of California, and the State of California (State) (collectively, State Defendants) on the other hand, stipulate as follows: 6 Whereas, on September 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed its Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Complaint) against the State Defendants seeking relief under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710-2721.

9 Whereas, on January 26, 2023, the Court, based upon a stipulation by the Plaintiff and State Defendants (Parties), granted summary judgment in Plaintiff’s favor on the Complaint, consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians v. California, 42 F.4th 1024 (9th Cir. 2022), and the undisputed facts agreed upon by the parties.

13 (Doc. 54.)

14 Whereas, on January 26, 2023, the Court further ordered the Parties to proceed pursuant to the remedial process set forth in 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii). (Doc. 54.)

16 Whereas, as part of the remedial process set forth in 25 U.S.C. §§ 2710(d)(7)(B)(iii)-(vii), the Parties now jointly request this Court to appoint Scott Bales, retired Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court (Justice Bales), to serve as the Court-appointed mediator pursuant to 25 19 U.S.C. §§ 2710(d)(7)(B)(iv). A copy of Justice Bales’ Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

21 Whereas, Justice Bales’ mediation service has advised the Parties that he is available to accept this appointment by the Court.

23 /// /// /// 1 Whereas, if this Court appoints Justice Bales, the Parties will jointly advise him of the appointment, prepare and submit to him joint instructions on his duties as a court-appointed mediator under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iv), and establish with his mediation service a mutually acceptable time schedule for Justice Bales to complete the performance of his mediator duties.

6 Therefore, the Parties respectfully request that this Court appoint Justice Bales as the mediator in this case.

8 Dated: October 3, 2023 Respectfully submitted, ROB BONTA 10 Attorney General of California T. MICHELLE LAIRD 11 Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General LISA L. FREUND 12 Deputy Attorney General 13 /s/ Noel A. Fischer 14 NOEL A. FISCHER Deputy Attorney General 15 Attorneys for Defendants Dated: October 3, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 19 LAW OFFICE OF FRANK LAWRENCE 20 /s/ Frank Lawrence (as authorized on 10/3/23) Frank Lawrence 22 Attorneys for Plaintiff

1 ORDER 2 Pursuant to the joint stipulation by the Parties (Doc. 61), the Court appoints retired Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Scott Bales (Justice Bales) to serve as the mediator in this matter pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iv).

5 The parties are ordered to work cooperatively in jointly advising Justice Bales of his appointment, jointly preparing and submitting to him instructions on his duties as a court appointed mediator under 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(iv), and establishing with his mediation service a mutually acceptable time schedule for Justice Bales to complete the performance of his mediator duties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: October 4, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE