You are here: Home / Court Rulings / State


May 13, 2021: Stand Up For California v State of California - Opinion in 5th District Court of Appeal on Remand
The Appeals Court conclude the people of California retained the power to annul a concurrence by the Governor and the voters exercised this retained power at the 2014 election by impliedly revoking the concurrence for the Madera site. As a result, the concurrence is no longer valid and the demurrer should have been overruled.
September 2, 2020: PAUMA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION v. State of California and California Gambling Commission
The panel agreed with the district court that the State satisfied its obligation to negotiate in good faith under IGRA because the State agreed to negotiate for the new types of class III gaming that Pauma sought authorization to offer at its casino, actively engaged in the negotiations, and remained willing to continue the negotiations when Pauma filed this litigation.
AUGUST 31, 2020: UAIC v Governor Newsom - Ruling
This California Supreme Court case challenges whether or not the California Governor has authority to grant concurrence for an off-reservation casino. Moreover, can the Governor on his own, remove state authority and jurisdiction on State lands.
December 13, 2019: Rincon Band V. Flynt, Case No.2018-58170
Tentative Rulings on Demurrers to First Amended Complaint
May 9, 2019: Kris Kit v. California Gambling Control Commission
May 9, 2019: Rincon First Amended Complaint
April 19, 2019: Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission of the Rincon Reservation California vs. Flynt
Minutes of Hearing
Nov. 16, 2018: Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians and Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Mission Indians v. Hustler Casino, Commerce Casino, Bicycle Casino Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Hollywood Park Casino , Oceans 11 Casino Players Poker Club, Celebrity casi
Complaint for damages and injunction for nuisance, unfair competition and civil conspiracy.
October 14, 2017: Lewis P. Geyser, Robert B. Coreltte, T. Lawrence Jett v USA, Dept. of the Interior
This action asserts claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., and the United States Constitution to overturn the unlawful and unconstitutional decision (the “Decision”) by the executive branch of the federal government to remove California’s jurisdictional authority  
Calif. Justices Clarify When Tribal Businesses Are Immune
Calif. Justices Clarify When Tribal Businesses Are Immune By Suevon Lee Los Angeles (December 22, 2016 The California Supreme Court on Thursday clarified the legal standard for when tribe-affiliated entities can establish legal immunity, holding that payday lenders affiliated with two tribes are not shielded from allegations they engaged in abusive practices. In a 42-page opinion, the state's highest court set forth a detailed analysis of the legal standard for establishing immunity for tribe-affiliated businesses. The decision relates to payday lending entities associated the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the Santee Sioux Nation in Nebraska, which did business in California and nationwide. The tribes formed businesses called Miami National Enterprise Inc. and SFS Inc. that contracted with a private firm and operated under the names Ameriloan, United Cash Loans, U.S. Fast Cash, Preferred Cash and One Click Cash. The California Department of Business Oversight sued the businesses in 2006, alleging they were violating the state’s payday lending statute by charging excessive fees, operating without a license and using threats to collect payments.
Flynt v. Harris Complaint 11.30.2016.pdf
Nov. 24, 2015: Oklevueha Native American Church v Sonoma County
Press Release and Complaint: A lawsuit alleging violation of Native American religious rights to grow and use sacramental marijuana for religious ceremonies.
July 8, 2015: Whitehouse vs. Sacramento Casino Royale LLC
Red Light Abatement Act -- the casino is a public nuisance. The court has ruled in favor of the casino defendants. But only because the casino has laid off all of its employees, removed all of its gaming tables, furniture and electronic equipment.
June 25, 2015: Illegal Sweepstakes - Internet Cafes
Sweepstakes games played at internet cafes on computers are illegal gaming devices and violate California Penal Code. The CA Supreme Court rules unanimously in favor of the State of California
June 24, 2015: Preliminary Ruling - Casino Royale Red Light Abatement Violation
Court favors the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs contend Casino Royale violated the Red Light Abatement Act by operating "banked games" in violation of Penal Code sections 330 and 330.11. That is operating card games where the player-dealer position remains with the house and does not provide a systematic and continuous rotation of the player-dealer position.
May 22, 2015: Stop the Casino v Gov. Brown
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a petition in Stop the Casino 101 v. Brown, an Indian gaming case. The Stop the Casino 101 Coalition sued Gov. Jerry Brown (D) for signing a Class III gaming compact with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. The lawsuit claims the tribe's trust land was not properly removed from state jurisdiction. The lawsuit was dismissed at the state level in California so the group asked the high court to hear the case. Brown declined to respond to the petition and the justices, without comment, declined the petition in an order yesterday. "This marks the end of our legal challenge to the Graton Casino," the group said on its website.
July 28, 2014: People of California v. Miami Nation (Pay Day Loans)
As a sovereign, a federally recognized Indian tribe is immune from suit in both state and federal courts, unless the tribe has waived its immunity or consented to suit or Congress has authorized the action. Both the United States Supreme Court and this Court have observed that an instrumentality or "arm" of a tribe shares in that tribe's immunity. To date neither court has set out a test to determine arm of the tribe status and the lower federal and state courts have developed a variety of conflicting approaches. This case offers an opportunity to clarify the law for California and to establish a persuasive authority for other jurisdictions confronting this difficult issue.
Nov.17, 2014: Ho Jun Sin v. The Normandie Card Club
Breach of employment agreement.
Nov. 3, 2014: Casino Royale Closure Order by State of California
October 6, 2014: Nicole Whitehouse v. Sacramento Casino Royal LLC
Judge Brown’s tentative overruling Casino Royale’s demurrer.
March 3, 2014: People of the State of California v Miami Nation Enterprises - request
May 6, 2013: Internet Lending - Alameda Superior Court Order
Paragraph #46: One of the many untoward consequences of this court's decision to dismiss the Tribal entities on immunity grounds is that, by respecting the sovereign immunity claims of those parties, non-immune parties in this case will probably be able to avoid liability by virtue of Plaintiff's need to obtain discovery from the Tribal Entities, which are shielded from any such discovery efforts. Thus in this and other cases, non-tribal parties now have a road-map by which they may concoct schemes to defraud and exploit California residents through the use(and abuse) of tribal entities as the vehicle for perpetrating their schemes and thereby avoid exposure to liability by maintaining the evidence of their misconduct in the records of the immune tribal entities established to front for them. All they need to do is pay the tribal entities for this "services." Such is the current state of the law. If Tribes increasingly elect to exercise their sovereign rights so as to facilitate such schemes, they may eventually see those rights re-defined.
Jan. 24, 2013: Jerry Rape v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians
State of Alabama Amicus Brief before State Supreme Court The Court Agrees with the State. Since the Poarch Band of Creek Indians was "not under federal jurisdiction" in 1934, Alabama Courts will treat the activities that occur on Poarch Band property just like activities that occur on any other land within the State's jurisdiction.
Nov. 30, 2012: Bingo Inovations v California Gambling Control Commission
A Sacramento judge has cleared the way for the expansion of bingo games linked statewide by technology that allows charities and churches to increase the pool of players and jackpots, helping raise more money for their causes. The decision by Superior Court Judge Michael Kenny this week also removes uncertainty for 18 organizations currently operating these “remote caller bingo” games over whether the state would consider renewing their licenses in the future. About 100 others are in line for licenses, officials estimated.
Feb. 13, 2012: PayDay Loans - Colorado Supreme Court Order
For the reasons articulated below, and based on the Colorado Supreme Court’s remand in Cash Advance v. State ex rel. Suthers, 242 P.3d 1099 (Colo. 2010), and on the hearing I conducted on November 22, 2011 in accordance with that remand, the motions to dismiss filed on July 20, 2005 and November 16, 2006, by Respondents Miami Nations Enterprises, Inc., and SFS, Inc., are GRANTED, the administrative subpoenas issued by Applicants to those Respondents are HEREBY QUASHED, the contempt citations aimed at those Respondents are HEREBY DISCHARGED and the bench warrants for the arrest of those Respondents’ tribal officers are HEREBY VACATED.
Employees vs. Morongo
July 27, 2011: Salt and Sea Venture v Robert Ramsey
unfair competition
May 19, 2011: Challenge to Chucky Cheese games
March 3, 2011: Federal Indictment Rackateering
Aritichoke Joes and the Oaks card clubs affected organized crime ring indicted
April 16, 2010: California Valley Miwoks v. CGCC
March 5, 2010: Angelina Mike (29 Palms Tribe) v. CA Franchise Tax Board
The California Court of Appeal has held that gaming distributions from a tribe to a tribal member who resides on a different reservation from the distributing tribe are taxable by the State. In tax year 2000, Ms. Mike received more than $385,000.00.
Dec. 23, 2009: Coaltion to Save Point Molate v. Contra Costa County BOS
This is a CEQA challenge on the recently approved MOU between the County and the Guidiville Band for the development of an off reservation casino at Point Molate in the Bay Area. The Coalition asserts that the County failed to perform the obligatory environmental process before rushing to sign an agreement for 12+million a year.
Jan. 2009: Kentucky vs. Interactive Gaming - Internet
In September 2008, Kentucky asked the courts to give it control of over 140 gambling-related domains in an attempt to block Kentucky residents from accessing the sites. A number of poker-related domains were named in the request. The first judge in the matter agreed, saying the sites named had to block access to their properties by Kentucky residents within 30 days or forfeit ownership of the domains. A quick and successful appeal stayed the order, leading to the current hearing in from of the State Supreme Court.
Station Casinos List of Creditors
While this is not a court ruling it is a significant list that brings to light the relationship of Station the developer and Attorneys that represent Tribes. This does present at the very least a question of conflict and ethics.
March 2007: San Pasqual v. CGCC
San Pasqual challenges the aggregate total of slot machine licenses in the 1999 tribal state compact as being too low.
Sept. 2007: Cates v. CGCC
The testimony is even more troubling given Qualset's assertion that the Commission accounts for all Fund contributions by performing "desk reviews" of all quarterly Fund contribution reports submitted by the tribes to insure the mathematical accuracy of the reports and the proper application of contribution rates in the Compact to the numbers reported by the tribes. We are at a loss to understand exactly how the Commission can possibly "insure the mathematical accuracy of the reports" when "net win" is a critical element in calculating the contribution amount, but the Commission purportedly does not know how "net win" is defined. It appears from the evidence presented that the Commission is simply 14 verifying the accuracy of mathematical calculations set forth in the reports submitted by the tribes without confirming that the numbers used to perform the calculations are those called for by the Compact. Needless to say, the Commission cannot collect and account for Fund contributions and collect and analyze the reports submitted by the tribes without knowing the definition of "net win."
Jan. 2007:Agua Caliente Petions for Rehearing
"The majority opinion applies a flawed approach to ascertaining federal law, ignoring the Supreme Court’s admonition to “defer to Congress” on tribal suit immunity, Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. at 760, and creating federal law not endorsed by Congress or the Supreme Court. This Court should grant this petition to correct those errors." Request is denied.
Dec. 2006:Agua Caliente v. FPPC ( CA Supreme Crt Ruling)
"In light of evolving United States Supreme Court precedent and the constitutionally significant importance of the state’s ability to provide a transparent election process with rules that apply equally to all parties who enter the electoral fray, we find the FPPC states the better case. Although concepts of tribal immunity have long-standing application under federal law, the state’s exercise of state sovereignty in the form of regulating its electoral process is protected under the Tenth Amendment and the guarantee clause. We therefore find that the Tribe lacks immunity from suit for its alleged failure to follow the PRA’s mandated reporting requirements. In so holding, we recognize that our abrogation of the sovereign immunity doctrine under these facts is narrow and carefully circumscribed to apply only in cases where California, through its Fair Political Practices Commission, sues an Indian tribe for violations of state fair political practice laws. We thus affirm the Court of Appeal judgment and remand for proceedings consistent with our ruling."
July 29, 2005: California Corporation Commissioner v First California Diversifed Fund - Tom Kelly
Bogus investment plan aimed at acknowledging new tribal governments for the development of urban Indian Casinos.
2004: FPPC v. Santa Rosa Indian Community
"The flaw in my colleagues’ decision is that it elevates the reserved powers of a state referred to (but not granted by) the Tenth Amendment above the powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. But the converse is true: Where the federal government, including the Supreme Court, exercises powers delegated to it by the Constitution, then the state has no reserved sovereign power to act in a contrary manner. For this reason, I cannot agree with my colleagues’ conclusion that “[t]he constitutional right of the State to sue 6 to preserve its republican form of government trumps the common law doctrine of tribal immunity.”1 Consequently, I would affirm the order granting the Tribe’s motion to quash."
1999: HERE v State of California - Proposition 5
In June of 1999, the California Supreme Court ruled on the HERE v. Davis case. This was the successful challenge to Proposition 5, a statutory ballot measure that included banked or house banked games. The Supreme Court held that: A banking game is one in which any person or entity takes on all comers, paying all winners and collecting from all losers. Under the Supreme Court’s analysis the purposes of Penal Code Section 330’s prohibition against banking games, even though the house does not own the bank. Further the Supreme Court held that: Article 4 Section 19 (e) of the California Constitution elevated the Penal Code Section 330 to a constitutional level. Accordingly the Legislature may not authorize any game that would constitute casino gambling.
1996: Western Telcon v Califoronia State Lottery
This case was decided by the California Supreme Court on June 24, 1996. The court held that the lottery's electronic keno game was not a lawful lottery game, but an illegal banked game that is prohibited in California. Hence the state lost the case although the ruling is favorable to the state's position in negotiating with Indian tribes. In non-banked games, including the lottery, the house collects a flat percentage. With a banked game the house is betting against the players and has a stake in the outcome. Although not strictly an Indian gaming case, it has ramifications over what is legal in California, hence what the tribes can operate.
May 1999: Kelly v. First Astri Corp
In 1999, banking games were illegal on and off of Indian Reservations. 3. “Banking game” As we have discussed, section 330 prohibits (among other things) the playing or carrying on, for money, of “any banking ... game played with cards....” In Western Telcon, supra, 13 Cal.4th at page 487, 53 Cal.Rptr.2d 812, 917 P.2d 651, our high state court explained the definition of “banking game”: “When one party wagers simultaneously against a number of others on the outcome of a game, the scheme is a called a banked game or, in the words of our statute (§ 330), a ‘banking game.’ This court first defined **817 the term ‘banking game’ in People v. Carroll (1889) 80 Cal. 153, 157-158, 22 P. 129, accepting as ‘suffi-ciently accurate’ the definition given by a witness at trial: ‘ “[A] game conducted by *474 one or more persons where there is a fund against which everybody has a right to bet, the bank being responsible for the payment of all the funds, taking all that is won, and paying out all that is lost. The fund which is provided for that purpose is generally called the bank, and the person who conducts it the banker.” ’ With variations in phrasing, this definition has been accepted and applied by California courts in many cases since. (See, e.g., Tibbetts v. Van de Kamp [1990] 222 Cal.App.3d [389,] 393, 271 Cal.Rptr. 792; Sullivan v. Fox [, su-pra,] 189 Cal.App.3d 673, 678, 235 Cal.Rptr. 5; In re Lowrie (1919) 43 Cal.App. 564, 566, 185 P. 421.) As succinctly stated in People v. Ambrose (1953) 265 P.2d 191, 122 Cal.App.2d Supp. 966, 970:
Sept. 1998: Oliver v County of Los Angeles
“[Newjack] is not one of the games specifically mentioned in section 330. The question of its legality or illegality thus depends upon whether it qualifies as either a banking or a percentage game. This is an issue of law. [Citations.]” (Sullivan v. Fox) In the instant case, we expand this analysis and we now hold that a game will be determined to be a banking game if under the rules of that game, it is possible that the house, another entity, a player, or an observer can maintain a bank or operate as a bank during the play of the game. In Huntington Park, the trial court observed that the position of player-dealer in pai gow “continually and systematically rotates among each of the participants.” (Id. at p. 245.)
1982: Assembly v. Deukmejian , 30 Cal.3d 638
As stated by the California Supreme Court in Assembly of State of Cal. V. Deukmejian (1982) 30 Cal. 3d 638,655, “[A] referendum filed against the entirety of a statue stays that statute pending voter approval.” This California Supreme Court case was helpful during the 2007 compact referendum providing clarification on whether or not the compacts on referendum were or were not in effect. See letters in related items.
July 23, 1997: AG Lungren vs. Community Redevlop Agency of Palm Springs

Document Actions