Case 1:13-cv LJO-MJS Document 13 Filed 07/12/13 Page 1 of 15

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of Robert A. Rosette (CA SBN ) Geoffrey M. Hash (CA SBN ) Nicole St. Germain (CA SBN ) ROSETTE, LLP Blue Ravine Rd., () - (Office) () - (Fax) rosette@rosettelaw.com ghash@rosettelaw.com Attorneys for SPECIALLY-APPEARING PROPOSED INTERVENOR DEFENDANT, THE PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THE CHUKCHANSI INDIANS, A FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIAN TRIBE (LEWIS FACTION) THE PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF CHUKCHANSI INDIANS, Plaintiff, vs. YOSEMITE BANK, et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DEFENDANT PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THE CHUKCHANSI INDIANS (LEWIS FACTION) OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENOR- DEFENDANT REID COUNCIL S MOTION TO INTERVENE (FRCP ) Date: July, Time: :0 a.m. Courtroom: Mag. Judge Michael J. Seng Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DEFENDANT PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THE CHUKCHANSI INDIANS (LEWIS FACTION) OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED

2 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. I. INTRODUCTION... II. FACTS... A. The Reid Faction Has Not Been Recognized By Anyone as the Legitimate Tribal Council, Including the Tribe s General Council, that Overwhelmingly Voted and Recognized the Tribal Council Led by Reggie Lewis on March,... B. Following Their Own Independent Review, USB and Premier Both Recognize the Lewis Faction s Authority and Refuse to Recognize the Reid Faction s Purported Authority... C. The Reid Faction s Modus Operendi is to File Exhaustive Litigation and Administrative Appeals to Conflate Issues, Confuse Reviewing Entities, and Force its Way Back into Power After the Tribe Has Already Clearly Found that it Lacks Authority as the Tribe s Governing Body... III. ARGUMENT... A. The Reid Faction Cannot Satisfy the Requirements for Intervention as a Matter of Right.... The Reid Faction Has No Significantly Protectable Interest Related to the Subject of the Action Because it Has No Right to Assert Interests as Individual Tribal Members and No Authority to Represent Itself as the Tribal Council.... Disposition of this Action Will Not Significantly Impair the Reid Faction s Rights.... The Reid Faction s Interests are Adequately Represented by the Existing Parties in this Action... B. Similarly, the Reid Faction Does Not Meet the Requirements for Permissive Intervention. IV. CONCLUSION i Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DEFENDANT PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THE CHUKCHANSI INDIANS (LEWIS FACTION) OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED COUNCIL S MOTION TO INTERVENE (FRCP )

3 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page No. Cases Arakaki v. Cayetano, F.d 0 (th Cir. 0)...,, Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S., 0 F.d (th Cir. 0)... Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. State of NY, F. Supp. 0 (N.D.N.Y. )... Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, U.S. (0)... Citizens for balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass n., F.d (th Cir. )... Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, F.d (th Cir. )... Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, F.d (th Cir. 0)... N. Paiute Nation v. U.S., Cl.Ct. 0 ()..., Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, U.S. ()... Sierra Club v. EPA, F.d (th Cir.)... Trbovic v. United Mine Workers of America, 0 U.S. ()... Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 0 F.d (th Cir. )... Federal Rules Fed. R. Civ. P...., Fed. R. Civ. P. (a)()..., Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)... Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)()(b)..., Fed. R. Civ. P. (b)(). ii Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DEFENDANT PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THE CHUKCHANSI INDIANS (LEWIS FACTION) OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED OUNCIL S MOTION TO INTERVENE (FRCP )

4 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of I. INTRODUCTION Defendant, the Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, a federally recognized Indian tribe (the Tribe when referring to the Tribe generally and Lewis Faction when referring to the Tribal Council led by Chairman Reggie Lewis), hereby opposes the Motion to Intervene recently filed by the Reid Faction (defined below) on the grounds that the Reid Faction has no basis to claim it is the governing body of the Tribe, and, as individual Tribal members has no standing to enforce rights of the Tribe. Through blatant misrepresentations of fact throughout its moving papers, five disgruntled individual Tribal members led by Morris Reid (the Reid Faction ) are attempting to assert themselves in an action in which they have no legal or factual basis to be involved as part of its relentless attempts to find a forum to legitimize its baseless claims of authority. As the Court is aware, the Honorable Michael J. Seng issued Findings and Recommendations Granting Motion to Intervene, as filed by the Lewis Faction in Case No. :- CV-000-LJO-MJS ( Rabobank Action ), on June, ( F&Rs ). On June,, the Honorable Lawrence J. O Neill adopted the F&Rs, and admitted the Lewis Faction as a Defendant in that Rabobank Action. As the Court is also aware, the Lewis Faction has filed a Motion to Intervene in this matter, for reasons that largely overlap with the reasons justifying intervention in the Rabobank Action. The Lewis Faction s Motion to Intervene is scheduled to be heard by this Court on July,, at the same time this Court will hear the Reid Faction s Motion to Intervene. Because the Reid Faction has no legitimate claim to represent the Tribe s governing body, and because both United Securities Bank ( USB ) and Premier Valley Bank, dba Yosemite Bank ( Premier ) have determined for their purposes that the Reid Faction has no right, power, or authority to control the accounts holding the Tribal funds at issue in this matter, the Lewis Faction respectfully requests that the Court deny the Reid Faction s pending Motion to Intervene. The It should be noted that the Reid Faction has fraudulently represented itself as the Tribe for purposes of its Motion to Intervene. The Reid Faction, comprised of individual Tribal members, does not represent the Tribe s governing body and has no authority to legitimately represent the Tribe in a lawsuit. Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DEFENDANT PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THE CHUKCHANSI INDIANS (LEWIS FACTION) OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED OUNCIL S MOTION TO INTERVENE (FRCP )

5 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of Reid Faction is comprised of five individuals that neither the Tribe s General Council nor any other third party recognizes (or has ever recognized) as the Tribal Council. It does not have a significantly protectable interest that is related to the subject matter of this action. Disposition of the instant case will not significantly impair the Reid Faction s rights. And the Reid Faction cannot show that its interests are not already protected by the Lewis Council s presence in the instant action. Thus, the Reid Faction is not entitled to intervention as a matter of right or permissive intervention pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. II. FACTS A. The Reid Faction Has Not Been Recognized by Anyone as the Legitimate Tribal Council, Including the Tribe s General Council, that Overwhelmingly Voted and Recognized the Tribal Council Led by Reggie Lewis on March,. At the heart of the Reid Faction s claim is an intra-tribal dispute arising from a contested election held December, that has long been resolved. There, former Tribal Council member Morris Reid led a faction of disgruntled Tribal members, upset with the operation of Tribal law governing Tribal elections, and attempted to set aside the Tribe s laws and illegally seize for themselves power as the governing body of the Tribe. See Declaration of Richard G. Verri in Support of Defendant Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians (Lewis Faction) Opposition to Proposed Intervenor-Defendant Reid Council s Motion to Intervene ( Verri Declaration ),. However, it is clear under federal law and policy that in the event of an election dispute, the Tribal Council elected and installed in the last uncontested election continues as the legally constituted governing body of the Tribe until Tribal law resolves any outstanding intra-tribal dispute to allow for stability in Tribal governance and continued protection of the Tribe s general welfare while Tribal law takes its course and due process is afforded to all involved parties. Verri Declaration,. Disregarding proper operation of the law, Reid and his followers physically stormed the Tribal government compound in February, and as a result, inflicted tens of thousands of dollars in property damage on Tribal property, brought a great deal of negative media attention to Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DINTERVENE (FRCP )

6 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of the Tribe, and ground the government function to a halt when Reid was unable to take control of the Tribe by force. With a complete disregard for Tribal law and process, Reid and his followers attempted to force a coup of the lawful Tribal government. Verri Declaration,. On March,, a vast majority of the quorum of the General Council affirmed by General Council Resolution No. -GC-00 that the Tribal Council which constitutes the governing body of the Tribe pursuant to Article IV of the Constitution consisted of the following individuals: Reggie Lewis (Chairman), Nancy Ayala (Vice Chairwoman), Jennifer Stanley (Secretary), Chance Alberta (Treasurer), and Nokomis Hernandez (Member-at- Large). Verri Declaration,, Exhibit A. Since March,, the Tribe recognized its governing body and ended the internal governance dispute erupting in December. Regular Tribal elections occurred in December pursuant to Tribal law, and those election results were received and recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Verri Declaration,, Exhibit B. Pursuant to Article XI of the Tribe s Constitution, on or about April,, Tribal members initiated a referendum process entitled Referendum of the General Council to Affirm By Resolution The Composition of the Tribe s Current Governing Body and Recent Efforts to Restore An Effective Tribal Government ( Referendum ). Verri Declaration,, Exhibit C. This Referendum was intended to restore order to the Tribe and all of its operations, including the Casino. The Tribe retained a respected third party entity, Indian Dispute Resolution Services, Inc. ( IDRS ), to coordinate issuance and collection of signatures on the Referendum, as well as verification and tabulation of the signatures. On April,, IDRS confirmed its receipt of petitions signed by qualified voters of the Tribe, far exceeding the qualified voter signatures required for a referendum to be effective. As of June,, IDRS certified that it has received signed petitions from % of the qualified Tribal members, all affirming the authority of the legitimate Tribal Council led by Reggie Lewis. Verri Declaration,, Exhibit D. The composition of the Tribal Council has since changed pursuant to the December elections as well as recent events detailed in the Tribe s Motion to Intervene, the facts of which are incorporated by reference herein. There are currently approximately 0 qualified voters in the Tribe. Thus at least qualified voter signatures were required in order to reach the 0% threshold required for a referendum. Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DINTERVENE (FRCP )

7 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of Finally, and perhaps most significantly, on May,, the BIA took a final agency action by issuing a letter addressed to Morris Reid, leader of the Reid Faction, through which the BIA expressly rejected the Reid Faction s purported authority to act on behalf of the Tribe ( May BIA Action ). See Exhibit C attached to the Declaration of James Qaqundah in Support of Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians (Reid Council) s Motion to Intervene, filed in this matter on June,, Dkt. No. -. In summary, on April,, the Reid Faction submitted a proposal to the BIA, purportedly on behalf of the Tribe, in an attempt to obtain a new three-year contract for fiscal years,, and pursuant to Public Law -. Id. As it explained in the May BIA Action, the Reid Faction s submission of this contract application required that [the BIA] determine whether [the Reid Faction is] authorized to represent the Tribe for government-to-government purposes... Id. The BIA could not have been clearer in rejecting the Reid Faction s authority vis-à-vis the Tribe:... we have determined that we do not recognize you to represent the governing body authorized to submit such a proposal on behalf of the Tribe. Id. The May BIA Action then went on to detail why, pursuant to applicable law, the Reid Faction had no authority to act on behalf of the Tribe in government-to-government relations. Id. Thus, any and all contentions previously raised by the Reid Faction pertaining to the December election are moot by virtue of: () the General Council resolutions enacted shortly thereafter, () the December election recognized by the BIA, () the April, Referendum supported by the majority of the Tribal membership; and, lest there be any doubt, This May BIA letter has been grossly misrepresented by the Ayala Faction. For example, the Ayala Faction has represented, both to this Court and to other courts, that the May BIA letter affirmed that, presently, the Tribal Council is composed of Nancy Ayala (Chairperson), Reggie Lewis (Vice-Chairperson), Tracey Brechbuehl (Secretary), Karen Wynn (Treasurer), Chance Alberta (Member-at-Large), Charles Sargosa (Member-at-Large), and Carl Buzz Bushman (Member-at-Large). See, e.g., Plaintiff s Objections to Magistrate Judge s Findings and Recommendations filed in Case No. :-cv-000-ljo-mjs, Dkt. No., at : through :. The Ayala Faction has further represented to this Court that, in affirming the present composition of the Tribal Council, the May BIA Letter resolved the current leadership dispute between the Ayala Faction and the Lewis Faction. Id. However, the May, BIA Letter in fact does no such thing. Instead, and as confirmed by Troy Burdick (Superintendent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior and author of the May BIA Letter), the May BIA Letter did not resolve the present leadership dispute between the Ayala and Lewis factions, and it did not recognize Nancy Ayala as the Chairperson of the Tribal Council as of May,. See Declaration of Robert A. Rosette in Support of Defendant Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians (Lewis Faction) Opposition to Proposed Intervenor- Defendant Reid Council s Motion to Intervene, -. It only spoke to the Reid Faction s authority. Id. Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DINTERVENE (FRCP )

8 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of () the BIA s May, final agency action expressly rejecting the Reid Faction s authority to represent the Tribe for government-to-government purposes. B. Following Their Own Independent Review, USB and Premier Both Recognize the Lewis Faction s Authority and Refuse to Recognize the Reid Faction s Purported Authority. As previously set forth by the Lewis Faction in its own Motion to Intervene in this matter, USB and Premier both undertook independent reviews with the guidance of legal counsel to determine who is, and is not, authorized to act on behalf of the Tribe. See Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of Specially-Appearing Proposed Intervenor Defendant s Motion to Intervene (FRCP) filed in this matter, Docket No. -, page line through page line. That review lasted several months, and involved the consideration of many different documents provided by various factions. Id. Ultimately, both USB and Premier determined that the Lewis Faction remains in control of the Tribal Council at the present time, and, therefore, has the right under the Constitution of the Tribe and the Bylaws of the Tribal Council to control the Tribe s accounts at USB and Premier. Id; see also Plaintiff s Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Money Damages, filed May 0,, Dkt. No. ( Complaint ) and Exhibits H and I attached thereto. On the very same day that USB and Premier recognized the Lewis Faction s authority, both banks also expressly rejected the Reid Faction s authority. Specifically, in a letter dated May,, USB and Premier s legal counsel addressed the Reid Faction s claim to control. Verri Declaration,, Exhibit E attached thereto. In rejecting the same and affirming the Lewis Faction s authority, USB and Premier reasoned that the Reid faction s position is not supported by contemporaneous documents and is also contrary to the November, decision by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Id. / / / / / / / / / / / / Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DINTERVENE (FRCP )

9 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of C. The Reid Faction s Modus Operandi is to File Exhaustive Litigation and Administrative Appeals to Conflate Issues, Confuse Reviewing Entities, and Force its Way Back into Power After the Tribe Has Already Clearly Found that it Lacks Authority as the Tribe s Governing Body. After the Reid Faction was unable to physically take control of the government buildings in February and the affirmation of the legitimate Tribal Council by the General Council pursuant to General Council Resolution No. -GC-00, the Reid Faction has turned to the federal government. The Reid Faction has filed numerous appeals before the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (the IBIA ) in a desperate attempt to gain some kind of relevancy in the eyes of the federal government after the Tribe s general membership overwhelmingly held the Reid Faction has no authority to hold itself out as the legitimate Tribal Council. Verri Declaration,. None of these appeals have recognized the Reid Faction as the lawful Tribal Council. Unfazed, the Reid Faction now seeks to assert itself into the instant action despite the will of the Tribe s General Council and the BIA s most recent May rejection of the Reid Faction s authority. Verri Declaration,. Following Nancy Ayala s illegal attempts to remove all of the lawfully installed Tribal Council members except herself, the Reid Faction again sought to capitalize on the chaos created by the Ayala Faction in an attempt to gain some kind of legitimacy in the Tribal government. All of these attempts continue to occur despite never once being recognized as the lawful governing body by the Tribe s general membership or any other third party reviewing entity, including the federal government and Rabobank. III. ARGUMENT Under controlling law, the intervention of the Reid Faction is not supported as a matter of right or by permission of the Court. While the standards for intervention under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule, whether permissive or as a matter of right, are construed liberally in favor of intervenors, the moving party bears the burden of showing that all of the necessary elements are met. Arakaki v. Cayetano, F.d 0, 0 (th Cir. 0); Citizens for balanced Use v. Montana Wilderness Ass n., F.d, (th Cir. ). As set forth below, the Reid Faction cannot meet this burden for intervention either as a matter of right or permissive Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DINTERVENE (FRCP )

10 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of intervention. Because the Reid Faction is nothing more than a group of individual Tribal members, it has no standing to act on behalf of the Tribe and therefore cannot show that: () it has a significantly protectable interest, () its interests would be impaired by the disposition of the instant action, or () its interests are not already adequately represented by the parties to justify intervention as a matter of right. Similarly, it cannot establish that it has a legitimate claim or defense shared with the action that has a common question of law or fact as required by Fed. R. Civ. P Rule (b)()(b). As such, its Motion should be denied. A. The Reid Faction Cannot Satisfy the Requirements for Intervention as a Matter of Right. Rule (a)() of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states, in pertinent part: on timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest. As a result, there are four basic requirements for intervention as a matter of right: () the motion must be timely; () the claim of applicant must claim a significantly protectable interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; () the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and () the applicant's interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the action. Sierra Club v. EPA, F.d, (th Cir.). The Reid Faction cannot meet these criteria.. The Reid Faction Has No Significantly Protectable Interest Related to the Subject of the Action Because it Has No Right to Assert Interests as Individual Tribal Members and No Authority to Represent Itself as the Tribal Council. An intervening party must have a sufficient interest for intervention purposes if it will suffer a practical impairment of its interests as a result of the pending litigation. Cal. ex rel. Lockyer v. U.S., 0 F.d, (th Cir. 0). A significantly protectable interest can be Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DINTERVENE (FRCP )

11 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of shown when the remedies sought in the action would have a direct, immediate, and harmful effect on tangible, concrete rights protected by law. Forest Conservation Council v. U.S. Forest Service, F.d, (th Cir. ) (abrogated on other grounds related to intervention on NEPA claims by Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 0 F.d (th Cir. ). In addition, resolution of the litigation must have an actual effect on the party seeking intervention. Arakaki v. Cayetano, F.d, (th Cir. 0). However, it is well settled law that individual tribal members do not have standing to claim right to tribal assets simply by way of their membership. See Canadian St. Regis Band of Mohawk Indians v. State of NY, F. Supp. 0, (N.D.N.Y. ); see also N. Paiute Nation v. U.S., Cl.Ct. 0, 0- (), citing Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, U.S., 0 (0) ( the general rule is that [w]hatever title the Indians have is in the tribe, and not in the individuals, although held by the tribe for the common use and equal benefit of all the members. ). Quite simply, the Reid Faction has no legitimate basis to claim that it rightfully constitutes the legitimate Tribal Council. There are no less than four () factors establishing that the Reid Faction has no such authority: () General Council Resolution No. -GC-00, () the December election recognized by the BIA, () the April, Referendum supported by the majority of the Tribal membership; and () the BIA s May, final agency action expressly rejecting the Reid Faction s authority to represent the Tribe for government-to-government purposes. In addition, both United Securities Bank and Premier have expressly rejected the Reid Factions purported authority to act on behalf of the Tribe. As such, its interest in the instant action is identical to the interest every other individual Tribal member. However, because case law is clear that individual tribal members do not have standing to claim a right to tribal assets (and thus control of those assets), the Reid Faction lacks a significantly protectable interest in this action to support intervention as a matter of right. The individual Tribal members that constitute the Reid Faction have only an interest afforded to individual Tribal members, which does not confer standing to claim right to the Tribe s assets. As a result, the Reid Faction cannot show a Magistrate Judge Michael Seng also cited to this case in his Findings and Recommendations on file with this Court in the Rabobank Action, Case No. :-CV-000-LJO-MJS (Dkt. No. ). Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DINTERVENE (FRCP )

12 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of significant interest that has been put at stake by the claims Plaintiff is pursuing. Thus, the Reid Faction is not entitled to intervention as a matter of right.. Disposition of this Action Will Not Significantly Impair the Reid Faction s Rights. A party seeking intervention as a matter of right must demonstrate that disposition of the pending action without that party would have a potential adverse impact on its interests which could impair or impede its ability to protect its interests. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule (a)(). Indian tribes are distinct, independent political communities, retaining their original natural rights in matters of local self-government they remain a separate people, with the power of regulating their internal and social relations. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, U.S., () (citations omitted). Pursuant to the reasoning of N. Paiute Nation and Cherokee Nation, supra, the Reid Faction lacks the authority to claim an interest in the adjudication of this case, and, as a result, cannot effectively demonstrate that disposition of this action will impair its rights. Similarly, none of the Reid s Faction s rights are impaired by not intervening in this action because the Reid Faction cannot credibly hold itself out as the Tribe s governing body after () the adoption of General Council Resolution No. -GC-00 on March, ; () the December election recognized by the BIA, () the April, Referendum supported by the majority of the Tribal membership; and () the BIA s May, final agency action expressly rejecting the Reid Faction s authority to represent the Tribe for government-to-government purposes. As discussed above, because the Reid Faction has no legitimate basis to claim that it is the legitimate Tribal Council, it cannot claim that disposition of this case would impair its rights. The General Council, pursuant to the rights afforded to members pursuant to Tribal law, has already determined that the Reid Faction is not the governing body of the Tribe on three separate occasions (General Council Resolution No. -GC-00, the December election recognized by the BIA, and the April, Referendum supported by the majority of the Tribal membership). Thus, since at least March,, the Reid Faction has lacked a legitimate basis Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DINTERVENE (FRCP )

13 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of to claim control of the Tribe, its assets, and its governing powers. The Reid Faction has not been recognized by any authority Tribal or non-tribal. In fact, as it explained in the May BIA Action, the BIA has determined that we do not recognize you to represent the governing body authorized to conduct government-to-government business. See Exhibit C to the Declaration of James Qaqundah in Support of Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians (Reid Council) s Motion to Intervene, filed in this matter on June,, Dkt. No. -. Thus, the Reid Faction s claim or representation of the Tribe is a misrepresentation that should not be honored by this Court. As such, its motion to intervene as a matter of right should be denied.. The Reid Faction s Interests are Adequately Represented by the Existing Parties in this Action. An intervenor must show tangible evidence that representation of his interest may be inadequate and the burden of showing possible inadequate interest should be treated as minimal. Trbovic v. United Mine Workers of America, 0 U.S.,, fn. (). When an intervenor shares the same interest as a government entity there is a presumption the government entity adequately represents the interests of the intervenor, and the intervenor must show a compelling reason demonstrating the inadequacy of the representation. Arakaki v. Cayetano, F.d, (th Cir. 0). The Reid Faction continues to defy and disregard Tribal law and BIA final agency actions by misrepresenting itself as the Tribal Council before this Court. The Tribe s General Council conclusively held that the Reid Faction is not the Tribe s governing body, and the BIA found the same in its May BIA Action. Thus, these disgruntled Tribal members individual interests are adequately protected by the Lewis Faction in its capacity as a government entity representing and acting on behalf of the more than 00 members of the Tribe. Because the Reid Faction has no compelling evidence to support that it is the Tribe s governing body, the Reid Faction cannot demonstrate that its interests are not already adequately represented by the Lewis Faction by virtue of their status as individual Tribal members. As a result, the Reid Faction cannot show inadequate representation in the action sufficient to justify intervention as a matter of right. Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DINTERVENE (FRCP )

14 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of B. Similarly, the Reid Faction Does Not Meet the Requirements for Permissive Intervention. The Reid Faction has sought, in the alternative, permissive intervention pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule (b). On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule (b)()(b). Such intervention requires consideration of undue delay or prejudice of the original parties rights. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule (b)(). Permissive intervention thus requires a showing of both timeliness and a common interest in law or fact, and the absence of undue delay or prejudice. The existence of a common question is liberally construed. Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, F.d, - (th Cir. 0). For the reasons discussed more fully above, the Reid Faction fails to meet these requirements as well. Because the Reid Faction cannot demonstrate that anybody (other than the individual Tribal members comprising the Reid Faction s sham tribal council) recognizes them as the governing body, it should not be afforded permissive intervention for the purposes of clawing its way to legitimacy and trying to wrest control over Tribal assets with no legal basis. In fact, granting such recognition would be in contravention of the BIA s own determination that the Reid Faction has no such authority as stated in the May BIA Action. As such, the Court should exercise its discretion to deny the Reid Faction s motion to intervene with the Court s permission. IV. CONCLUSION As set forth fully above, the Reid Faction has no reasonable claim to act on behalf of the Tribe in any capacity, and, in fact, such claims have been repeatedly rejected by both the General Council of the Tribe and the BIA. Thus, the Court should deny the Reid Faction s Motion to Intervene because it cannot establish that it has a significantly protectable interest, that disposition of the case could significantly impair the Reid Faction s ability to protect its interests as Tribal members or that the Reid Faction s interests are not already adequately represented by the existing parties. Similarly, the Court should deny permissive intervention into this action Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DINTERVENE (FRCP )

15 Case :-cv-00-ljo-mjs Document Filed 0// Page of pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule (b) because of the prejudice and no clear common interest in law or fact. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this th day of July,. ROSETTE, LLP By: /s/ Geoffrey M. Hash Geoffrey M. Hash, Telephone: () - Attorneys for SPECIALLY-APPEARING INTERVENOR DEFENDANT, THE PICAYUNE RANCHERIA OF THE CHUKCHANSI INDIANS (LEWIS FACTION) Case No.: :-CV-00-LJO-MJS DINTERVENE (FRCP )