JW GAMING DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company v. Angela James

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JW GAMING DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a
California limited liability company,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANGELA JAMES; LEONA L.
WILLIAMS; LENORA STEELE; KATHY
STALLWORTH; MICHELLE
CAMPBELL; JULIAN J. MALDONADO;
DONALD WILLIAMS; VERONICA
TIMBERLAKE; CASSANDRA STEELE;
JASON E. RUNNING BEAR STEELE;
ANDREW STEVENSON; PINOLEVILLE
POMO NATION, a federally-recognized
Indian tribe,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 18-17008
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-02669-WHO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 7, 2019
San Francisco, California
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
OCT 2 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, SILER,** and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Several individual defendants (collectively the “tribal defendants”) appeal
the district court’s order denying their motion to dismiss the claims against them
on the basis of sovereign immunity. Because the facts are known to the parties, we
repeat them only as necessary to explain our decision.
The district court did not err in denying the tribal defendants’ motion to
dismiss the fraud and RICO claims that JW Gaming Development, LLC (“JW
Gaming”) filed against them. Under our “remedy-focused analysis,” the Tribe is
not the real party in interest with respect to such claims. Maxwell v. County of San
Diego, 708 F.3d 1075, 1088 (9th Cir. 2013). The claims are explicitly alleged
against the tribal defendants in their individual capacities, and JW Gaming seeks to
recover only monetary damages on such claims. If JW Gaming prevails on its
claims against the tribal defendants, only they personally—and not the Tribe—will
be bound by the judgment. Any relief ordered on the claims alleged against the
tribal defendants will not, as a matter of law, “expend itself on the public treasury
or domain,” will not “interfere with the [Tribe’s] public administration,” and will
not “restrain the [Tribe] from acting, or . . . compel it to act.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, such claims are not shielded by the
** The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Tribe’s sovereign immunity. See Lewis v. Clarke, 137 S. Ct. 1285, 1290–92
(2017); Pistor v. Garcia, 791 F.3d 1104, 1112–14 (9th Cir. 2015); Maxwell, 708
F.3d at 1088–90.1
AFFIRMED.
1 This is true even though the tribal defendants have been sued for actions
they allegedly took in the course of their official duties and even if the Tribe
chooses to indemnify the tribal defendants for any adverse judgment against them.
See Lewis, 137 S. Ct. at 1288, 1292–94; Pistor, 791 F.3d at 1112; Maxwell, 708
F.3d at 1088–90.

-- 3 of 3 --