Patrick D. Webb, Esq. State Bar No. 82857 WEBB ......2021/01/22 · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Patrick D. Webb, Esq. State Bar No. 82857WEBB & CAREY402 West Broadway Ste 1230San Diego CA 92101Tel 619-236-1650Fax 619-236-1283

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER ROSALES, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,v.

UNITED STATES, ET AL;

Defendants.

))))))))))

Civ. No. 2:20-cv-00521 KJM KJN

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES INOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS

Date: December 11, 2020Time: 10:00 a.m.Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1. Dismissal of Prior Actions Has No Issue Preclusive Effect on the Four Non-Identical Claims in the FAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. Defendants Concede Sovereign Immunity is Waived for RFRA, APA, FTCA andTucker Act Claims. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3. Plaintiffs Timely Presented Their FTCA Claims well within the ApplicableStatutes of Limitation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4. Plaintiffs Properly State Personal Injury and Property Damage FTCA Claims forDefendants’ Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty in Violation of NAGPRA,ARPA, and California’s PRC, HSC, and Penal Codes... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5. Plaintiffs Properly State Claims for Breach of the United States Highest FiduciaryDuty and General Trust Responsibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

6. Plaintiffs Properly State Claims for Conversion and Taking without JustCompensation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

7. Plaintiffs Properly State Stand Alone Claims for Declaratory Relief underCalifornia Law.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

8. Plaintiffs Have Properly Stated Alternative Personal Capacity Claims against theIndividual Defendants for violation of the Fifth and First Amendments, RFRA andAIRFA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Case 2:20-cv-00521-KJM-KJN Document 22 Filed 11/25/20 Page 1 of 32

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Addison v. California, 21 Cal.3d 313 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Angle v. U.S., 709 F.2d 570 (9th Cir. 1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 20

Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes v. Board of Oil & Gas Conserv. 792 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Attakai v. United States, 746 F. Supp. 1395 (D. Ariz. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Augustine v. United States,704 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Avila v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 731 F.2d 616 (9th Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11

Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Reloc.Com'n, 854 F.2d 321 (9th Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Com’n, 878 F.2d 1119 (9th Cir. 1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (“Twombly”), 550 U.S. 544 (2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 3

Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 19, 20

Blair v. I.R.S., 304 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Boling v. United States, 220 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Bonnischsen v. USDOA, 969 F.Supp. 614 (D. Or. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 4, 8, 14, 16, 18

Bonnischsen v. USDOA367 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 14

Burlesci v. Petersen, 68 Cal.App.4th 1062 (1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

-ii-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Broudy v. United States, 722 F.2d 566 (9th Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Brown v. Spearman, 2019 WL 2513732 (E.D. Cal. 2019). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751 (2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1977).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Castro Romero v. Becken,256 F.3d 349 (5th Cir. 200.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Chatterton v. Boone, 81 Cal.App.2d 943 (1947). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma v. United States, 26 Cl.Ct. 798, 803 (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Chi. & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (1948).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Clifford v. Gibbs, 298 F.3d 328 (5th Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Coast Indian Cmty. v. U.S.,550 F2d 639 (Ct. Cl. 1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Cohen v. Groman Mortuary, Inc., 231 Cal. App. 2d 3 (1964). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2000).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Davis v. Adler, 2020 WL 376153 (S.D. Cal. 2020). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Davis v. Passman,442 U.S. 228 (1979).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

-iii-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Douglas v. United States, 658 F.2d 445 (6th Cir. 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Dredge Corp. v. Penny, 338 F.2d 456 (9th Cir. 1964).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Duncan v. U.S., 667 F.2d 36 (Fed. Ct. Cl. 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

E.E.O.C. v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Enos v. Snyder, 131 Cal. 68 (1900). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Fairbanks North Star Borough v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 543 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2008).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. B.L.M., 455 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D. Nev. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 14, 16, 17, 18

FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Feminist Women's Health Center, Inc. v. Philibosian (Philibosian), 157 Cal.App.3d 1076 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

FGS Constructors Inc. v. Carlow (FGS), 823 F.Supp. 1508, 1513 (W.D.S.D.1993) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Fletcher v. United States, 730 F.3d 1206 (10th Cir. 2013).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Followay Productions Inc. v. Maurer, 603 F.2d 72 (9th Cir. 1979).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Fong v. United States, 300 F.2d 400, 403 (9th Cir. 1962).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Fox v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.3d 792 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Freeman v. San Diego Ass’n of Realtors, 322 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Friends of the Wild Swan Inc. v. U.S. Forestry Dept., 910 F.Supp. 1500 (D. Or. 1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne,464 F.Supp.2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Gallardo v. United States, 755 F.3d 860 (9th Cir. 2014).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

-iv-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334 (9th Cir. 1986).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Hartelius v. Northern Burlington R.R. Co., 1999 U.S. App. Lexis 2771 (9th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Hartford Fin. Corp. v. Burns, 96 Cal.App.3d 591 (1979). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Hatter v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 166 (1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Havasupai Tribe v. United States, 752 F. Supp. 1471 (D. Ariz. 1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Hearns v. San Bernardino, 530 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Holt v.Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853 (2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Hoopa Valley Ind. Tribe v. Ryan, 415 F.3d 86 (9th Cir. 2005) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U.S. 558 (1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Indep. Living Ctr. of So. Cal. v. Kent, 909 F.3d 272 (9th Cir.2018). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61 (1955) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Irwin v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Jacobson v. U.S., 276 F.Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Jiminez v. United States, Case No. 17-cv-1205 BTM-AGS, at *10-11 (S.D. Cal. 2018). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc.,899 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

-v-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kulinski v. Medtronic Bio-Medicus, Inc., 112 F.3d 368 (8th Cir. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Kyle K. v. Chapman, 208 F.3d 940 (11th Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Comm. Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Love v. United States, 871 F.2d 1488, (9th Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 19

Mack v. Warden Loretto FCI, 839 F.3d 286 (3d Cir. 2016).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 20

Maldonado v. City of Ripon, No.17-00478 (E.D. Cal. 2018)(Casetext). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 16

Manchester Band of Pomo Indians, Inc. v. U.S., 363 F.Supp. 1238 (N.D. Cal. 1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, 132 S. Ct. 2024 (2015).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Mitchell v. United States (Mitchell II), 463 U.S. 206 (1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 16

Montgomery v. Board of Retirement, 33 Cal.App.3d 447 (1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Moose v. U.S., 674 F2d 1277 (9th Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Morgan v. California, 743 F.3d 728 (9th Cir. 1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Morse v. Merced, 2016 WL 3254034 (E.D. Cal. 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Na Iwi O Na Kupuna O Mokapu v. Dalton, 894 F.Supp. 1397 (D. Haw. 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Navajo Nation v. U.S.D.O.I. (“Navajo Nation”), 819 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 4, 8, 14, 16, 18, 20

Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran (Newman), 287 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 18, 19

Nicholas v. United States, 42 Fed.Cl. 373 (Fed.Cl. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

-vi-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

N.L.R.B. Union v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 834 F.2d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

N. Assurance Co. of Am. v. Square D Co., 201 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2000).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Offshore Marine Contractors, Inc. v. Palm Energy Offshore, LLC,, NO: 10-4151 (E.D. La. 2013)(Casetext). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Offshore Sportswear v. Vuarnet Int’l., 114 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 1977).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Oklevueha Native Am. Church of Haw., Inc. v. Holder,676 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Osage Tribe of Indians of Okla. v. U.S., 72 Fed. Cl. 629 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Palmquist v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co.(Palmqist), 3 F.Supp. 358 (S.D. Cal. 1933). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 18

Parents v. Pleasant Valley Sch. Dist., No. CV17-2380 (M.D. Pa. 2018)(Casetext). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Patel v. Bureau of Prisons, 125 F.Supp.3d 44 (D.D.C. 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

People v. Van Horn, 218 Cal.App.3d 1378 (1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Picayune Rancheria Indians v. USDOI, CASE NO. 16-CV-0950, at *13 (E.D. Cal. 2017). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7

Port of Bos. Marine Terminal Ass'n v. Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic, 400 U.S. 62 (1970).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Pueblo of San Ildefonso v. Ridlon, 103 F.3d 936 (10th Cir. 1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 16

Quechan Indian Tribe v. United States (Quechan), 535 F.Supp.2d 1072 (S.D.Cal. 2008).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim

Quechan Tribe v. United States, 2011 WL 1211574, at *2 (D. Az. 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Rivas v. Napalitano,714 F.3d 1108 (9th 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Robinson v. Salazar, 838 F.Supp. 2d 1006 (E.D. Cal. 2012).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 14, 16, 17, 18

Rodriguez v. Chicken, No. CV 08-1217 (D. Ariz. 2008) (Casetext). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

-vii-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rooney v. United States, 634 F.2d 1238 (9th Cir. 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Rosales v. United States, 824 F.2d 799 (9th Cir. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Rosales v. United States, 2007 WL 4233060 (S.D. Cal. 2007). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 14

Ross v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 699 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

San Carlos Apache Tribe v. U.S., 272 F. Supp. 2d 860 (D. Ariz. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 14, 16

Sands v. Morongo Unified Sch. Dist., 53 Cal.3d 863 (1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Scheinblum v. Lauderdale Co. BOS, 350 F.Supp.2d 743 (S.D. Miss. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Schiller v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., 449 F.3d 286 (2d Cir. 2006).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286 (1942).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17

Sherbert v. Verner, 174 U.S. 398 (1963).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Siderman de Blake v. Republic of Argentina,965 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783 (D.C. Cir. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Sinai Temple v. Kaplan, 54 Cal.App.3d 1103 (1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Skokomish Indian Tribe v. U.S., 410 F.3d 506 (9th Cir. 2005). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Slockish v. U.S.F.H.A. (“Slockish”), 3:08-CV-1169-ST (D. Or. Feb. 6, 2012). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 18, 20

Smith v. U.S., 515 F.Supp. 56 (N.D. Cal. 1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Sullivan v. Chen, Case No. 1:12-cv-01662-AWI-EPG, (E.D. Cal. 2018). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Sun Valley Gasoline, Inc. v. Ernst Enterprises, Inc., 711 F.2d 138 (9th Cir. 1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

-viii-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Syverson v. IBM, 472 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2007).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Tanvir v. FNU Tanzin, 894 F.3d 449 (2d Cir. 2018).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Thody v. Ives,2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24095 (C.D. Cal. 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Thorpe v. Borough of Jim Thorpe (Thorpe), 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 135242 (M.D. Pa. 2011).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103 (1935).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17

United States v. Family Healthcare Network, No. CV 07-00700 (E.D. Cal. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

United States v. Lee,106 U.S. 196 (1882).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

United States v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391 (1973).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17

United States v. Olson, 546 U.S. 43 (2005).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

United States v. Roberts, Civil No. 2014-95 (D.V.I. 2017)(Casetext). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

United States v. Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13

United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1986).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Valdez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851 (9th Cir. 2011).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Vann v. Kemthpthorne, 467 F.Supp.2d 56, aff’d in part, 534 F.3d 741 (D.C. Cir. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Varela v. Wells Fargo Bank, 15 Cal.App.3d 741 (1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Viall v. Scott,1991 U.S. App. Lexis 22051 (9th Cir. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Waldron v. INS, 17 F.3d 511 (2d Cir. 1994).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Warren v. Fox Family Worldwide, Inc. 328 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

-ix-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1977).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

White v. Univ. of Cal., 765 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2014).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Winnemem Wintu v. USDOI, 725 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1131(E.D. Cal. 2010).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Wisenbaker v. Farwell, 341 F.Supp. 2d 1160 (D. Nev. 2004). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Wong v. Beebe (“Wong”), 732 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2013).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11, 12

Woods v. Carey, 328 F. App'x 481 (9th Cir. 2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Wynder v. McMahon, 360 F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U. S.( ACE)(Yankton Sioux I), 83 F.Supp.2d 1047 (D. S.D. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U. S.( ACE)(Yankton Sioux II), 209 F. Supp.2d 1008 (D.S.D. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Yassin v. CCA,2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 110393 (S.D. Cal.2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Younger v. United States,662 F.2d 580 (9th Cir. 1981).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Zaslow v. Kroenert, 29 Cal.2d 541 (1946). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Ziglar v. Abbasi,137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Statutes, Regulations and Rules

U.S. Const. 1st Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 19, 20

U.S. Const. 5th Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 19, 20

Cal. Const. Art. 1, §4, Art. XVI §5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

25 U.S.C. §§3001-3013.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 14

25 U.S.C. §3002(a)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

25 U.S.C. §3002(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

-x-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25 U.S.C. §3009.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

28 U.S.C. §1346(a)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

28 U.S.C. §1346(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

28 U.S.C. §1402(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

28 U.S.C. §1491(b)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

28 U.S.C. §1505.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

28 U.S.C. §2201.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

28 U.S.C. §2401(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

28 U.S.C. §2401(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

28 U.S.C. §§2671-80. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

28 U.S.C. §2675(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10

28 U.S.C. §2679.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

28 U.S.C. §2679(d)(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13

42 U.S.C. §2000bb.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

28 C.F.R., §14.2(c).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10, 11

43 C.F.R. §10.1-17.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

43 C.F.R. §10.2(f), (g)(4).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

43 C.F.R. §10.3(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

43 C.F.R. §10.4(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

43 C.F.R. §10.4(c), (d), (e).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

43 C.F.R. §10.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

43 C.F.R. §10.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

43 C.F.R. §10.10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

43 C.F.R. §10.15(a)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

43 C.F.R. §10.15(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Fed. R. Civ. Proc., Rule 5(b)(2)(E). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Fed. R. Civ. Proc., Rule 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

-xi-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Fed. R. Civ. Proc., Rule 12(b)(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Fed. R. Civ. Proc., Rule 12(b)(7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Fed. R. Civ. Proc., Rule 12(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3


Fed. R. Civ. Proc., Rule 19(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4


Cal. Civil C. §1852. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Cal. Civil C. §1928. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §335.1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §338. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §1060. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 19

Cal. Evid. C. §669. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 15, 17

Cal. Penal Code §622.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Cal. Public Resources Code §5097.9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 19

Cal. Public Resources Code §5097.94.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 15, 19

Cal. Public Resource Code §5097.97. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 19

Cal. Public Resource Code §5097.98. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 15, 19

Cal. Public Resources Code §5097.99.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 15, 19

Cal. Public Resources Code §5097.991.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 19

Cal. Public Resources Code §5097.993.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 15, 19

Cal. Public Resources Code §21803. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

14 Cal. Code Regs. §15064.5(e). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

14 Cal. Code Regs. §15126.4(b)(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Eastern Dist. of Cal., Local Rule 135(a), (f), (g). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Miscellaneous

Restatement Second, Torts.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 17

-xii-


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Patrick D. Webb, Esq. State Bar No. 82857WEBB & CAREY402 West Broadway Ste 1230San Diego CA 92101Tel 619-236-1650Fax 619-236-1283

Attorneys for PlaintiffsUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER ROSALES, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,v.

UNITED STATES et al.,

Defendants.

))))))))))

Civ. No. 2:20-cv-00521 KJM KJN

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES INOPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Date: December 11, 2020Time: 10:00 a.m.Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller

Introduction

The United States, the Department of the Interior, its Secretary, David Bernhardt, its Pacific

Regional Director, Amy Dutschke, and its former Chief of the Pacific Environmental Division, John

Rydzik’s (“Defendants”) motion to dismiss, ECF Doc. 19-1 (“MTD”), should be denied because:

Plaintiffs properly state claims for personal injury and property damage caused by the

Defendants’ negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and taking without just compensation,

and seek declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. §2201 and the stand alone cause of action under Cal.

C.C.P. §1060, arising from the Defendants’ violation of the U.S. and Cal. Constitutions, NAGPRA,

ARPA, RFRA, AIRFA, and Cal. HSC, PRC, and Penal Codes, cited in FAC, ¶6. which do not affect

any interest of the Jamul Indian Village (“JIV”). FAC, ECF Doc. 14, ¶¶1-9, 25-55, 98-231.

The Defendants breached their mandatory duties in violation of these federal and state laws

by failing to protect the lineal descendent Plaintiffs’ families’ remains from intentionally unlawful

excavation and removal from what is tribal land, held in fee by the U.S., within the supervision and

control of the Interior Department, and without notice, consent and just compensation. Defendants

failed to: obtain required permits, consult, provide pre-deprivation hearings and repatriation of those

remains for re-interment with the dignity, cultural tradition and religious rites required by law,

causing Plaintiffs’ more than $8 million in personal injury and personal property damage, as alleged

in FAC, ¶¶1-9, 98-106, 107-194, 195-202, 203-225, 228.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

As set forth in FAC, ¶5, this is not the first time the lawful interment of human remains and

funerary objects have had to be moved to make way for subsequent development. However, as with

most things, there is a right way, and a wrong way, in which to move a cemetery. Here, the federal

land managers breached the highest of fiduciary duties and failed to enforce the law to protect the

Plaintiffs from the intentionally unlawful excavation of their families’ remains, when they were dug

up, trucked and dumped in a land fill. FAC, ¶¶1-9, 98-106, 107-194, 195-202, 203-225, and 228.

Defendants’ motion fails to address the new paragraphs in the FAC,1 which properly allege

that: (1) dismissal of the prior actions has no issue preclusive effect on the four non-identical claims

in the FAC ¶¶25-54, (2) the United States has waived sovereign immunity for these claims, FAC

¶¶55-63, (3) these claims are within the statutes of limitation, FAC ¶¶64-84, and (4) the Defendants’

final agency actions failed to enforce the statutory protections of the lineal descendent Plaintiffs’

human remains. FAC ¶¶85-97, 107-225.

The Defendants simply ignore the new facts alleged, which make no claim as to any interest

of the JIV. This makes the claims in the FAC non-identical with the claims in Case No. 15-1145, and

therefore not precluded, for the eight factual reasons stated in FAC ¶¶25-54, since they were never

adjudicated in the prior action. Contrary to the MTD, 11:8-9, the Plaintiffs’ claims against these

Defendants were not fully litigated in the prior action, but were merely dismissed without prejudice

for lack of an indispensable party, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41, which party is no longer

required or indispensable as alleged in FAC ¶¶25-54.

In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all of the plaintiff's factual allegations

as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly

(“Twombly”), 550 U.S. 544, 550 (2007); Navajo Nation v. USDOI , 819 F.3d 1084, 1088, fn. 7 (9th

Cir. 2016). Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion is disfavored, since it has been made before the Court

receives any evidence. Bonnichsen v. U.S. Dept. of Army, 969 F. Supp. 614, 619 (D. Or. 1997). Upon

1The most glaring of which is the failure to acknowledge that the United States is now anamed defendant, in addition to the fact that the United States was automatically substituted as adefendant in the original action, where, as here, there are allegations that Plaintiffs were injured byacts within the scope of the individual defendants’ authority, pursuant to the Westfall Act, 28 U.S.C.2679. See FAC ¶15, 19, and MTD 17:13, 27:10, using the ECF page numbers.

2PLTFS. P&A IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a motion to dismiss, the court should freely grant leave to amend, per Rule 15(a), even if no request

to amend is made, where the pleading can be “cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000); Winnemem Wintu v. USDOI, 725 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1131(E.D.

Cal. 2010). The complaint may be dismissed only if "it appears beyond doubt...that the plaintiff can

prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Hoover v. Ronwin,

466 U.S. 558, 587, (1984),

Plaintiffs’ negligence, breach of fiduciary, conversion and taking without just compensation

claims are plausible on their face. Twombly, at 570. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff

pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is

liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). Since "[t]he

plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' Plaintiffs factual content is sufficient,

when [as here] it establishes “more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,"

Id., and the “factual allegations...raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, at 555.

1. Dismissal of Prior Actions Has No Issue Preclusive Effect on the Four Non-IdenticalClaims in the FAC

Contrary to the MTD’s misrepresentation, the issues alleged in the FAC, concerning the

government’s failure to protect Plaintiffs’ families’ remains from illegal excavation and removal

have never actually been litigated in any prior action. Defendants concede without dispute that

Plaintiffs seek no remedy affecting any interest of the JIV in the amended complaint. FAC ¶¶25-54.

Instead Defendants merely repeat their prior motion, based upon 3 allegations not made in the FAC,

without specifically addressing any of the newly alleged facts. Defendants also fail to provide a

sufficient record for this Court to properly determine whether any issue in this action is precluded

by the Courts’ prior rulings. FAC ¶¶50-53.

Moreover, Defendants raise issues about Plaintiffs’ prior actions that are beyond the face of

the FAC, and state triable issues of fact that require a trial on their merits, before they could be held

to preclude any issue in the FAC. FAC ¶51-53. Where, as here, the jurisdictional facts are disputed,

intertwined and dependent on factual issues going to the merits under NAGPRA and the FTCA, it

is an abuse of discretion not to deny the motion until time of trial, per Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(d).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FAC ¶¶51-53, as held in Fong, Khoja, Siderman, Wells Fargo, Rivas, Assiniboine, Warren, Sun

Valley, Rosales, and Augustine, cited there.

Contrary to the MTD, 13, since the JIV has no legal claim in Plaintiffs’ families’ remains,

it cannot be either a required or indispensable party, under Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 19(b), particularly

since the FAC only seeks relief against the federal Defendants, as there are no competing interests

between the JIV and the Defendants, as alleged in FAC ¶¶1-9, 25-33, 42-49, 107-150, 151-194, 195-

202, and 228, and held by Bay Mills Indian Community, Navajo Nation, and cases cited there.

As the Court will undoubtedly recall, the prior action was dismissed only because it stated

the following three facts, which are not alleged in the FAC, and which the Defendants fail to

mention: “(1) the JIV is not a federally recognized tribe, (2) the land at issue in the suit—the Jamul

Indian Cemetery—is not Indian Land, and (3) non-federal defendants’ actions violated

section10.8.3(c) of the Compact.” Compare the Court’s order in Case No. 15-1145, Doc. 98:9:3-5,

with FAC, ¶¶27-28, 34-41. Since the FAC does not allege these facts, and since these facts are not

necessary for any of Plaintiffs’ claims, the JIV is not a required or indispensable party in this action,

for the eight factual reasons stated in FAC ¶¶25-54, none of which the Defendants address. Contrary

to the MTD, 11:26, none of the improperly referenced prior actions decided any of Plaintiffs’ four

claims here, which do not allege any of the facts affecting the JIV in the prior actions.

As explained in FAC ¶¶1-9, 25-33. 107-150, 151-194, and 207-10, Plaintiffs seek no remedy

affecting any legally protected interest of the JIV. Nor has the JIV claimed any right, title, or interest

in, nor control over, the lineal descendent Plaintiffs’ families’ remains, and has, as a matter of law,

irrevocably waived any claim therein pursuant to 43 C.F.R. §10.15(a)(1), as alleged in FAC ¶25, and

held in Bonnichsen, at 624, and Thorpe v. Borough of Jim Thorpe, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis135242, *10

(M.D. Pa. 2011), which waiver the Defendants also concede without dispute.

Contrary to the MTD 13, there is no parcel of land at issue in the FAC, since Plaintiffs’

claims arise from the mistreatment of their families’ remains, which are not real property. FAC ¶¶

1-2, 206-210. There are no core tribal sovereign interests at issue here. FAC ¶26. Unlike any of the

prior actions referenced in the MTD, the FAC makes no claim for injunctive relief affecting any land

in which JIV claims an interest, nor any allegation casting doubt on the JIV’s sovereign authority,



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

nor any claim that the casino is not built on Indian land, or that JIV does not exercise governmental

power over that land. FAC ¶27. None of the FAC’s claims allege any dispute in the characterization

of any land, because the NAGPRA “claims do not rise and fall upon the ownership of land.” FAC

¶8, Quechan Indian Tribe v. United States (“Quechan”), 535 F.Supp.2d 1072, 1100 (S.D. Cal. 2008).

Nor is there any allegation that the JIV does not exercise jurisdiction over any land. FAC ¶28. The

relief Plaintiffs seek does not affect any continuing interest JIV has in the land from which the

remains were removed. FAC ¶29-32. This action does not seek to invalidate any ordinance, rule,

regulation, contract, Compact, or property right of JIV. FAC ¶33. Nor will JIV be prejudiced by any

judgment awarding damages or declaratory relief requiring the Defendants to comply with the

NAGPRA laws, now that the Plaintiffs’ remains have been removed from what both sides admit is

undeniably and simultaneously tribal land, held in fee by the U.S.

Contrary to the MTD 14-15, responsibility for NAGPRA compliance has not been placed

exclusively on tribes. Rather, Congress explicitly requires the federal Defendants (not the tribe) to

protect Plaintiffs’ remains from intentional excavation and removal from what is simultaneously

federal and tribal land, without consent of the lineal descendants, because Plaintiffs’ ownership and

control of their remains have statutory priority over the tribe. These mandatory duties are very

specifically alleged to have been breached in FAC ¶¶108-114, ¶¶115-29, failing to require notice,

permits, and just compensation prior to intentional excavation, ¶¶130-134, failing to inventory

remains, ¶¶135-40, failing to consult and provide a written plan for disposition with dignity, ¶¶141-

44, failing to repatriate Plaintiffs’ remains, ¶¶145-46, failing to obtain NAGPRA Review Committee

findings, ¶¶147-150, failing to provide Plaintiffs’ custody of their remains, and ¶¶151-194, failing

to comply with the PRC and HSC as required on any federal cemetery in California, as alleged in

¶¶182-83, which the government is estopped to deny following Quechan, 1105-06, 1117-23.

Defendants do not deny their breach of these mandatory statutory duties, and do not deny that

their duties to the lineal descendants have a higher priority than any duties to any tribe, as

specifically alleged in FAC ¶¶28-32; 107-150, 151-194.2 Here, there are no claims that the

2 Defendants mis-cite Rosales, 2007 WL 4233060, which did not, and could not, decide thatthe the government had no duties on tribal land when in possession and control of Plaintiffs’remains, since those duties had not yet been triggered because the remains had not been excavated



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs’ remains were inadvertently discovered; since they were intentionally excavated and

removed, the government remains liable for failing to perform its mandatory duties under NAGPRA.

FAC ¶¶31, 96-178. Plaintiffs make no claims that any tribe failed to comply with NAGPRA on

tribal lands, only that the federal officials breached their independent duties to protect the lineal

descendent Plaintiffs’ families’ remains from being illegally excavated and removed, without notice,

pre-deprivation hearings, consultation, inventory, a written plan for dignified disposition and

repatriation, which mandatory statutory duties have not been delegated to tribes, contrary to the MTD

assertion at 15. FAC ¶¶1-9, 28-32; 107-150, 151-194.

Moreover here, both sides agree that the Plaintiffs’ families’ remains were removed from

tribal land, for which the U.S. holds title, and “full responsibility for management” and “actual use,”

while in custody and control of Plaintiffs’ remains, as alleged in FAC ¶¶3-4, 57, 108-114, 151-194,

195-202, and Robinson, *7, quoting Mitchell II, 224. Indeed, both sides agree that there is no dispute

that “the trust responsibility arises when the United States holds tribal property in trust,” MTD

15:17-18, as is alleged here. FAC ¶¶1, 3-4, 57, 113, 195-202; Quechan Tribe v. United States, 2011

WL 1211574, at *2 (D. Az. 2011), aff’d 599 F.App’x. 698 (2015), and Quechan at 1105-10, 1118-

23, finding no sovereign immunity nor preemption of Plaintiffs’ right of action for damages arising

from the government’s negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in per se violation of federal and

state law. FAC ¶¶118, 151-54, 182-83; 25 U.S.C. §3009.

Plaintiffs’ prior claims are not identical to the claims in this action, most importantly, because

here there are no claims against any JIV interest. The prior claims were dismissed without an

adjudication on the merits, which the MTD admits at 12:6, and therefore the dismissals are not issue

preclusive in this action, as repeatedly held in the Ninth Circuit, as alleged in the FAC ¶¶34-38, 40-

41, in Syverson, 1078, Freeman, 1143, fn. 8, Offshore Sportswear, 849, Followay, 76, Dredge Corp.,

463, and Picayune, at *13, cited there. The only issues decided in Case No. 15-1145 were that the

JIV was an indispensable party due to the 3 facts alleged above, which are not alleged in this action.

in 2007, and since the court had no jurisdiction of the merits due to the absence of an indispensableparty, that is no longer required, or indispensable, now that the lineal descendent Plaintiffs’ remainshave been excavated, and are no longer an inadvertent discovery, as alleged in FAC ¶¶108-194, 195-202, 203-225. The court also admits in fn. 8, that the government’s duty to the tribes is second to itsduty to lineal descendent Plaintiffs, due to their higher ownership priority, per 25 U.S.C. 3002(a)(1).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Id.; FAC ¶40-41. Hence, the only issues conclusively determined in Case No. 15-1145 are that this

Court has no jurisdiction to determine that: (1) the JIV is not a federally recognized tribe, (2) any

land is not Indian Land, and (3) non-federal defendants’ actions violated section 10.8.3(c) of the

Compact; none of which are alleged or are necessary for Plaintiffs’ remedies here.

Contrary to the MTD, 12:4, the Ninth Circuit only affirmed the prior dismissal under Rules

12(b)(7) and 19, and did not affirm denial of leave to amend, nor rule upon Plaintiffs’ request to

strike the 3 facts from the prior complaint. FAC ¶39. Case No. 17-16967, Dkt. Entry 58-1:3.

Contrary to the MTD, 12-13, and as alleged in FAC ¶54, neither Davis, nor Brown, bar filing

of a new complaint, correcting a jurisdictional deficiency by deleting facts affecting an indispensable

party, following denial of leave to amend the original complaint failing to name the indispensable

party. Davis and Brown merely hold that a Plaintiff cannot file a new complaint with the identical

claims for which amendment was denied. Here, Plaintiffs’ new complaint is not identical to the

TAC in Case No. 15-1145.

Here, Plaintiffs have filed four non-identical claims within their statutes of limitation, which

do not include the 3 facts that made the JIV an indispensable party to the action in Case No.15-1145,

and for which leave to amend was not finally adjudicated. FAC ¶¶38-39. This is why Plaintiffs are

entitled to correct the prior defective pleading and preserve the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction

over Plaintiffs’ independent claims against the Defendants, which were not adjudicated in the prior

action, by filing this new action, as held in: Picayune Rancheria Indians v. USDOI, Case No.16-CV-

0950, at *13 (E.D. Cal. 2017), and Scheinblum v. Lauderdale Co. BOS, 350 F.Supp.2d 743, 746

(S.D. Miss. 2004); none of which Defendants address.

‘[T]he dismissal permits a second action on the same claim that corrects thedeficiency found in the first action, the prior dismissal is only ‘effective to precluderelitigation of the precise issue of jurisdiction...that led to the initial dismissal.’Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 4436,p.149 [] (citing Baris v. Sulpicio Lines, Inc., 74 F.3d 567, 571 (5th Cir.1996)(dismissals for lack of jurisdiction are not considered adjudications on themerits and ordinarily do not, and should not preclude a party from later litigating thesame claim, provided that the specific defect has been corrected...). Picayune at *13.

As alleged in FAC ¶38, denial of leave to amend does not bar filing of a new suit raising non-

identical issues not adjudicated in the original action, as held in Ross, 229, Offshore Marine, *8,



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Kulinski, 373, N. Assurance, 88-89, and Curtis, 139-40, cited there; all of which refuse to give denial

of leave to amend preclusive effect because such denial was not an adjudication on the merits.

2. Defendants Concede Sovereign Immunity is Waived for RFRA, APA, FTCA andTucker Act Claims

Defendants admit, MTD 16:23-24, that RFRA and the APA unequivocally waive the

government’s sovereign immunity for Plaintiffs to obtain declaratory relief providing for: “(A) a

written plan of action specifically including Plaintiffs’ ownership, custody and control of, and the

kind of traditional and planned treatment, care and handling of, and the disposition of, any of their

human remains and funerary objects, as required by 25 U.S.C. 3002(d)and 43 C.F.R. 10.2(f),

10.2(g)(4), 10.3(b), 10.4(b), 10.4(c), (d) and (e), 10.5, 10.6 and 10.10,P.R.C. §§5097.94, 5097.98,

5097.99, 5097.993, 21803, and 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15064.5(e) and15126.4(b)(3); and (B) transfer

of legal custody to Plaintiffs of any of their Native American human remains and funerary objects,

as required by NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. §3001 et seq., and 43 C.F.R. 10.6, and P.R.C. §5097.98.” FAC

¶231. Defendants cannot deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to such a declaratory judgment in order to

establish their entitlement to damages from the non-parties with current custody and possession of

their families’ remains, that have failed to repatriate them, which failure continues to cause

Plaintiffs’ severe emotional distress.

Nor do Defendants deny, nor address, any of their multiple discrete final agency actions in

failing to enforce NAGPRA, ARPA, and California’s HSC, PRC, and Penal Codes, that are

continuing to cause Plaintiffs’ damages, for which sovereign immunity has been waived under the

FTCA, the Tucker Acts, and the APA, as alleged in FAC ¶¶57-58, 85-97, 98-202, and as found in

Quechan at 1108-10, Navajo Nation, 1088-89, Bonnichsen, 627, n.17, and 367 F.3d 864, 873-75,

San Carlos, 886, Fallon, 1214-17, 1222-24, and Fletcher 1211, fn. 2, cited therein, all finding the

government liable for failing to take discrete final agency actions that it was required to take to

enforce federal and state NAGPRA statutes.

Contrary to the MTD 17:8, fn. 3, 24:7-11, Plaintiffs do not seek to compel the Defendants

to return something they no longer have, rather Plaintiffs seek damages and a declaration of their

rights as a result of Defendants’ breach of the obligations they admit they had to protect Plaintiffs’



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

remains before such illegal excavation and removal, when the remains were still in their custody and

control. However, Defendants cite no authority, and there is none, that they need to have current

possession of the remains for Plaintiffs to be entitled to a judgment establishing that the Defendants’

breached their obligations to provide Plaintiffs with notice, a right to consent, consultation, a pre-

deprivation hearing, and repatriation of the custody and possession of their families’ remains, before

they were intentionally excavated and removed, and Plaintiffs’ right to exercise their religious burial

rights was infringed in violation of 25 U.S.C. 3002(d), 43 C.F.R. 10.1-17, 42 U.S.C. 2000bb, and

P.R.C. §§5097.94-.993, 21803, and 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15064.5(e) and15126.4(b)(3), while the

Defendants had control of the remains, as alleged in FAC ¶¶57-58, 85-97, 98-225.

Defendants concede that the government has waived sovereign immunity for monetary

damages in the FTCA and Tucker Act claims, MTD 16, as alleged in FAC ¶¶57-58, under 28 U.S.C.

§§1346(a)(2) and (b), 1402(b), 1491(b)(1), 1505, 2401(b), and 2671-2680. Moreover, Defendants

ignore Plaintiffs rights to transfer their Tucker Act claims to the Court of Federal Claims, where

there is no $10,000 limit on recovery. 28 U.S.C. §1406(c); Skokomish Indian Tribe v. U.S., 410 F.3d

506 (9th Cir. 2005); Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Reloc.Com'n, 854 F.2d 321, 323 (9th Cir. 1988).

Here, again, Defendants fail to acknowledge that the United States is now a named defendant

in the FAC, MTD 17:13, 27:10, and that they have admitted, MTD 17:13, that the FTCA has

unequivocally waived sovereign immunity for damages caused by negligent statutory violations of

its agents, as alleged in FAC ¶¶57-58, 107-225; and found in Olson, 44, Indian Towing, 64-69,

Love, 1492, and Quechan at 1105-06, 1117-23, cited there, finding that California’s Evid. C. 669,

provides for per se negligence claims based upon the violation of any statute “embodying a public

policy” and a standard of care, like NAGPRA, ARPA, and Cal. HSC, PRC, and Penal Codes,“even

if the statute does not contain a specific civil remedy.”

3. Plaintiffs Timely Presented Their FTCA Claims well within the Applicable Statutes ofLimitation

Here also, the Defendants continue to ignore the new allegations in the FAC ¶¶64-84,

establishing Plaintiffs’ timely compliance with the FTCA’s administrative claim process within the

applicable limitations periods in 28 U.S.C. §§2675(a), 2401(b), 28 C.F.R. §14.2(c), and 43 C.F.R.



pdwTypewritten Text'

pdwTypewritten Text

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

§10.15(c). Plaintiffs’ written claims were timely presented to, and served on, Defendants within

California’s 2 year limitations period for personal injury claims, CCP §335.1, and the 3 year period

for property damage claims, CCP §338, FAC ¶64-65, and well within the 6 year limitations period

for claims against the government. FAC ¶66-67.

Plaintiffs’ claims accrued upon excavation on February 10, 2014, and continue today. FAC

¶75. Plaintiffs first presented their tort claims to the Defendants for violation of the federal and state

NAGPRA statutes in ther amicus brief on February 11, 2014, well within 2 years of their accrual.

FAC ¶¶76; 13-1920 ECF Doc. 75-2, 33:2-48:26. They amended those claims in the original

complaint in 15-1145 stating a sum certain of $4 million on May 27, 2015, also within 2 years of

their accrual. FAC ¶76. Plaintiffs’ original complaint in 15-1145 did not contain an FTCA claim

because they had not yet exhausted their administrative remedies. FAC ¶76. Plaintiffs amended tort

claims were timely served on the Defendants on September 23, 2015, again well within 2 years of

accrual, just as in Quechan at 1086. FAC ¶77; 15-1145, Docs. 15-16. When 6 months passed with

no action by the Defendants, Plaintiffs’ amended claims were deemed denied on March 23, 2016,

as alleged in FAC ¶72 and ¶78. 28 U.S.C. 2675(a); Wong at 1033. Therefore, where, as here, the

Defendants did not deny the claim, nor take any action with regard to the claim, the six-month

limitations period for such claims never began to run, and the Plaintiffs had the option “at any time

thereafter” to file suit, as alleged in FAC ¶¶73, 77-78. and held in Douglas cited there.

Plaintiffs then amended their complaint in 15-1145 on May 20, 2016 to timely add their

FTCA claims, and to state a sum certain in excess of $8 million, as alleged in FAC ¶¶78-79, and

allowed by Valdez-Lopez v. Chertoff, 656 F.3d 851,856-57 (9th Cir. 2011), stating:

There is nothing in the statute or our case law that would prevent a plaintiff fromamending an existing complaint asserting non-FTCA claims to name the UnitedStates as a defendant and include FTCA claims, once those claims have beenadministratively exhausted.

Plaintiffs also attached Standard Form 95, as Exhibit O, memorializing the fact that their

amended claims had been timely presented on September 23, 2015, per 28 C.F.R. 14.2(c), as alleged

in FAC ¶79, and as allowed in Avila v. Immigration & Naturalization Service (“Avila”), 731 F.2d

616, 619-20 (9th Cir.1984), finding that a claim may be amended at any time prior to final agency



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

action. Standard Form 95 and the amended claims were served on Defendants the same day, May

20, 2016. 15-1145, Doc. 50, per Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E), and Local Rule 135(a), (f), (g). FAC ¶79.

Contrary to the MTD 18:2, there is nothing improper with presenting an amended claim to

the Defendants at any time prior to final agency action. Avila at 619-20. Here, there has never been

any agency action taken with regard to Plaintiffs’ FTCA claims, which are therefore deemed denied

without any action having been taken for more than 6 months. 28 U.S.C. §2675(a); 28 C.F.R.

14.2(c); Wong at 1033; FAC §72.

Nor is there anything improper with using the Plaintiffs’ amicus brief, and amended

complaint to present their claims that the Defendants breached their obligations under the federal and

state NAGPRA statutes. Any written notice to the Defendants, whether on a Standard Form 95 or

otherwise: (1) identifying the claimant and the bases of the claim, (2) stating the amount of damages

being sought, and (3) passage of six months during which the Defendants failed to act on the claim,

satisfies presentment and exhaustion of remedies under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a), even where those claims

are presented in a complaint not making any FTCA claims, as alleged in FAC ¶¶69-71, and as held

in the cases cited there, including the Ninth Circuit’s Avila, 619-20, Jacobson, 1109, Blair, 868,

Broudy, 568, Rooney, 1242-43, and the Eighth Circuit’s FGS Constructors Inc., 1513.

There similarly is no regulation preventing Standard Form 95 from being used to

subsequently memorialize the fact that Plaintiffs’ amended claims containing a sum certain were

originally presented to the Defendants on September 23, 2015. Nor is there any regulation

prohibiting the signing of the form after the original presentment of Plaintiffs’ NAGPRA claims in

their original complaint was served on Defendants on September 23, 2015. That complaint contained

no FTCA claims, as there had yet been no exhaustion of administrative remedies. Hence, there is

nothing improper about the signing and service of the Standard Form 95 memorializing the

presentment of the claims in the original complaint on September 23, 2015.

What Ms. Pock, the government’s paralegal, allegedly did, or did not do, with the Standard

Form 95, once served upon the government’s counsel on September 23, 2015, pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E), and Local Rule135(a), (f), (g), and whether it was properly catalogued in the

DOI’s database, is just more evidence of the government’s negligence. The determinative fact is that



pdwTypewritten Text

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Plaintiffs presented their written claims that the Defendants tortiously breached the federal and

state NAGPRA statutes on September 23, 2015. The Defendants do not, and cannot truthfully, deny

that they had ample notice that Plaintiffs claimed that the government had caused more than $4

million in severe personal injuries as a result of failing to enforce federal and state NAGPRA

statutes, given the proof of such electronic service on government’s counsel on September 23, 2015.

15-1145, ECF Docs. 15-16. Moreover, it is undisputed that they failed to act on those claims for

more than 6 months. Case No. 15-1145, ECF Doc. 15 and 16.

Therefore, the filing of this action on March 6, 2020, ECF Doc. 1, is well within all three

time periods permitted by the FTCA, since it was filed: (1) after the September 23, 2015 written

presentment had been made within two years of the February 10, 2014 accrual of Plaintiffs’ personal

injury and property damage claims, (2) after the September 23, 2015 written presentment of the

amended claims was deemed denied on March 23, 2016, and (3) “at any time” after the Defendants

failed to act upon the presentment of the claims for more than six months, which ran on March 23,

2016. FAC ¶81.

Plaintiffs’ current action is also timely under the FTCA, since Plaintiffs sued the government

employees for acts while in the scope of their employment, and the United States was then

substituted as the party defendant, and these claims were further presented to the federal agency on

March 6, 2020, within 60 days of the February 4, 2020 dismissal of the original action, where

defendants claimed there had been no prior presentment of the claim. 28 U.S.C. §2679(d)(5). FAC

¶¶74 and 82.

Plaintiffs’ claims also remain timely, since there is a “particularly strong presumption in

FTCA cases” that their action in Case No. 15-1145 tolled the statute of limitations, from May 27,

2015 through February 4, 2020, while they exhausted their administrative remedies, as alleged in

FAC ¶83-84, and held in United States v. Wong, 135 S.Ct. 1625, 1629 (2015), affirming Wong v.

Beebe, 732 F.3d 1030, 1033, 1035, 1048, 1050-51 (9th Cir. 2013), and Irwin v. Dept. Vet. Affairs,

498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990), since the Plaintiffs diligently prosecuted their claims, and were allowed to

file this action within 60 days of the extraordinary circumstances in which the original action was

dismissed, without a ruling on the merits, after Defendants’ (not Plaintiffs’) erroneous legal theory



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of lack of presentment did not pan out, as alleged in FAC ¶82-83, per 28 U.S.C. §2679(d)(5), and

held in Wong, 1620, relying on Irwin, Gallardo, 865, Wisenbaker, 1165-68, Jones, 928, Daviton,

1137-38, Clifford, 333, Sullivan, *12, Jiminez, *10-11, and Addison, 317-21, cited there. In addition,

the continuing claims doctrine precludes any statute of limitations from shielding the Defendants

from the on-going injury caused by their failure to enforce the NAGPRA statutes, as alleged in FAC

¶84, and held in Cherokee Nation, 26 Cl.Ct. 798, 803 n. 4, Nicholas, 376-79, Hatter, 180, and

Boling, 1373-74, cited there. Finally, “substantive challenges to agency action,” as here, that it is

unconstitutional and based on an erroneous interpretation of the NAGPRA statutes, “have no time

bars,” as alleged in FAC ¶67, and held in Schiller and N.L.R.B. Union, cited there. None of which

Defendants address or deny.

4. Plaintiffs Properly State Personal Injury and Property Damage FTCA Claims forDefendants’ Negligence and Breach of Fiduciary Duty in Violation of NAGPRA,ARPA, and California’s PRC, HSC, and Penal Codes.

Defendants admit the FTCA allows state-law damage claims arising from torts committed

by the United States. MTD 25. However, they fail to acknowledge that the U.S. is now a named

defendant in the FAC, MTD 17:13, 27:10, which properly states claims for damages under

California law, as a result of the negligent violation of the federal and state NAGPRA laws, while

in custody and control of Plaintiffs’ remains, book marked as follows:

(1) unlawful denial of the lineal descendent Plaintiffs’ ownership and control oftheir families’ remains, FAC ¶¶1-9, by:

(2) breaching the government’s mandatory duties to protect Plaintiffs’ families’remains from intentional excavation without Plaintiffs’ consent, FAC ¶¶107-129and 151-202, 203-225;

(3) failing to inventory the lineal descendent Plaintiffs’ remains, FAC ¶¶130-134;

(4) failing to consult with the lineal descendent Plaintiffs and provide a written planof action as to treatment and disposition of their remains, FAC ¶¶135-140;

(5) failing to repatriate Plaintiffs’ families’ remains. FAC ¶¶141-144;

(6) failing to obtain the required NAGPRA Review Committee’s Findings andRecommendations for Repatriation of Plaintiffs’ families’ remains. FAC ¶¶145-146;

(7) failing to enforce the lineal descendent Plaintiffs’ rights to custody of theirfamilies’ remains. FAC ¶¶147-150; and

(8) unlawfully denying the lineal descendent Plaintiffs’ personal property rights in



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

their families’ remains, by conversion, as a bailee, when the remains were illegallyexcavated and removed, without due process, notice, consent, or just compensation.FAC, ¶¶203-225; as held in the cases cited therein.

Defendants do not deny any of these specific violations of the federal and state NAGPRA

laws, which they admit were “extensively legislated” to protect the very claims made here for failing

to protect Plaintiffs’ remains from intentional excavation and removal, while in the government’s

custody and control. MTD 22:16-23. They also do not deny that: “[T]he waiver of immunity within

the FTCA does not require the ‘law of the place’ contain an express private remedy,” where, as here,

NAGPRA, ARPA, RFRA, and California’s HSC, PRC, and Penal Codes create a standard of care

and a fiduciary duty that was breached. Quechan at 1100-1110, 1117-23. Therein, the government’s

motion to dismiss the negligence and breach of fiduciary duty claims was denied, specifically finding

that FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994)3 did not prevent the Plaintiff from “rely[ing] upon the

federal law cited, including NAGPRA, to support a standard of care,” and a “comprehensive

responsibility to protect those resources..., [which] thereby establishes a fiduciary relationship.”

Quechan at 1100-1108, and 1109-10, and 1117-23.

Moreover, contrary to the MTD , 23:23, the courts have found that Plaintiffs have a right to

sue the government, whether delineated a private right of action or not, for violating federal and state

NAGPRA statutes on tribal land, held in fee by the U.S., while in custody and control of Plaintiffs’

remains, per 25 U.S.C. §§3002-13, and allowing damages, as held in Quechan,1100-08, 1117-23,

and declaratory relief in Fallon, 1217-18, 1021-24, Pueblo of San Ildefonso, 939, White, 1016, San

Carlos, 886-87, Bonnichsen, 627-28, and 367 F.3d 864, 875, Robinson, 1035-36, Navajo Nation,

1088-89, 1091-95, fn. 12, Attakai, 1410, Yankton I, 1054-55, 1058; Yankton II, at 1016, and

Slockish, *19, and as alleged in FAC ¶¶108-114, 115-153, 154-55, 156-194.4

3 Plaintiffs do not make claims for Constitutional torts under the FTCA. They only seek suchpersonal capacity Bivens claims, pursuant to the Fifth and First amendments, in the alternative totheir FTCA claims against the United States.

4. Contrary to the MTD 24:5-10, neither White, Rosales, 2007 WL 4233060, Oklevuela, norCastro, hold that damages from NAGPRA violations are not available under FTCA’s waiver ofsovereign immunity against the U.S; White, 1024, merely held tribal sovereign immunity was notabrogated by the APA’s waiver of immunity for declaratory relief, Rosales,*8, was withoutjurisdiction of the merits, and made no decision as to the government’s mandatory duties, since there,the government was not alleged to be in possession or control, where the remains were not excavatedin 2007, unlike here, FAC ¶¶113-14, and Castro similarly held that since no remains had been



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Here also, the Defendants neither acknowledge, nor distinguish, these cases, and totally

ignore these specific violations, because they do not, and cannot, deny that the United States and its

agents collectively failed to: (1) enforce Plaintiffs’ ownership and control of their families’

remains,(2) prevent intentional excavation and removal of Plaintiffs’ remains without their consent,

(3) provide notice, obtain required permits, consultation, a written plan of treatment with dignity,

and inventory, including (4) repatriation and custody of the remains to Plaintiffs, and (5) prevent

conversion without due process, notice, consent, or just compensation, for all of which a private

person may be liable in tort in California. Id., Quechan,1100-08, 1117-23.

As held in Quechan, 1106-10, 1117-1123, Cal. Evidence C. §669 and Rest. 2nd of Torts,

§§158-74, 188, 211, 214-15, 870-71, provide the state law by which the government’s failure to

exercise due care is presumed, where a similarly situated private person will be found liable in tort,

where: (1) their employees violated federal or state regulations, including, but not limited to,

NAGPRA, Cal. HSC, particularly PRC 5097.9-993, preventing interference with Native American

religion and excavation of cultural remains, and Penal Code 622 1/2, (2) which proximately caused

injury to Plaintiffs’ person and property, (3) which damages, the regulations were designed to

prevent, and (4) in which class the Plaintiffs are to be protected by such regulations. as alleged in

FAC ¶¶114, 153-54, 192, 199, 217. See also, FAC §§192-93, 210, citing Van Horn, 1391-92,

finding damages for illegal possession of remains under P.R.C. 5097.99, and Palmquist at 360,

finding a private right of action for per se negligence in violation of California law.

Contrary to the MTD 23, Plaintiffs complaint does not conceal or disguise any of Defendants’

specific violations of law, each of which are listed by statute and specific regulation. FAC¶¶108-194.

"Defendants' argument... demonstrates that they understand the nature of each claim, and therefore

how to defend against" them. Maldonado v. City of Ripon, No.17-00478, at *6 (E.D. Cal.

2018)(Casetext). Here, Defendants simply ignore their violation of the specific regulations, requiring

the protection of Plaintiffs’ remains from intentional excavation and removal from tribal land, the

title of which is held by the United States, as stated in FAC ¶¶107-194, 203-225.

Even an 80 page complaint with excessive detail that is “intelligible and clearly delineates

removed and since Plaintiff was not a lineal descendant and did not own the patrimony, there wereno damages; not that damages for NAGPRA violations were not available.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the claims,” cannot be dismissed for not being a short and plain statement, particularly where “much

of the statutory and regulatory authority set forth in the complaint is relevant to establishing [the]...

materiality of [Defendants] alleged” torts, since “such information does not render the compla

Patrick D. Webb, Esq. State Bar No. 82857 WEBB ......2021/01/22 · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13...

Documents

Transcript of Patrick D. Webb, Esq. State Bar No. 82857 WEBB ......2021/01/22 · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13...