turtletalk.files.wordpress.comi circuit rule 27-3 certificate pursuant to circuit rule 27-3(a), i...

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: 11335027, DktEntry: 1-2, 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


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.


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


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


iv

precipitatingeventforthefilingofthispetitionandemergencymotion.

PetitionersaresimultaneouslyfilinginthedistrictcourtaMotionforaStay

PendingaPetitionforaWritofMandamus.

s/RudyE.VernerRudyVernerCounselforPetitioners


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


vi

VIII. IntheAlternative,ThisPetitionShouldBeTreatedasaCohenAppeal..................................................................................................................................33

A. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderConclusively

DeterminestheDisputedQuestion............................................................34B. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderResolvesanImportant

IssueSeparateFromtheMeritsoftheAction.......................................34

C. TheDistrictCourt’sDiscoveryOrderisEffectivelyUnreviewableonAppealfromaFinalJudgment.................................36

IX. Conclusion.........................................................................................................................36STATEMENTOFRELATEDCASESCERTIFICATEOFCOMPLIANCECERTIFICATEOFSERVICE


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


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


ix

Statutes18U.S.C.§1961.............................................................................................................................7 28U.S.C.§1651......................................................................................................................5,31


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,


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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).


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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’


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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).


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


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


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


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


40

DATED:June17,2019 s/RudyVerner _________________________ RudyE.Verner BergHillGreenleafRuscittiLLP

1712PearlStreetBoulder,CO80302p.(303)402‐1600

[email protected]


turtletalk.files.wordpress.comi circuit rule 27-3 certificate pursuant to circuit rule 27-3(a), i...

Documents