United States Court of Appeals,
BIG LAGOON RANCHERIA, a federally recognized Indian tribe, Plaintiff–Appellee/Cross–Appellant,
State of CALIFORNIA, Defendant–Appellant/Cross–Appellee.
Nos. 10–17803, 10–17878. | July 8, 2015.
Attorneys and Law Firms
Peter Engstrom, Bruce H. Jackson, Esquire, Baker & McKenzie LLP, San Francisco, CA, Michael A. Pollard, Baker and McKenzie, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Peter H. Kaufman, Esquire, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, AGCA–Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Defendant–Appellant.
Before HARRY PREGERSON, STEPHEN REINHARDT, ALEX KOZINSKI, DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SUSAN P. GRABER, WILLIAM A. FLETCHER, RICHARD A. PAEZ, JAY S. BYBEE, MILAN D. SMITH, JR., MORGAN CHRISTEN and JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
*1 The opinion filed June 4, 2015, and published at ––– F.3d ––––, 2015 WL 34998884, is amended as follows:
At slip opinion page six, line eight, insert a new footnote 1 after <district court.> but before <Id.> as follows:
<In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 75 (1996), the Supreme Court held that Section 2710(d)(7) does not abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. California's sovereign immunity is not implicated here, however, because the State has waived its immunity to suit in this context. See Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of Rincon Reservation v. Schwarzenegger, 602 F.3d 1019, 1026 (9th Cir.2010).>.
At slip opinion page twelve, line eleven insert <under Federal jurisdiction in 1934 and was not> after <tribe was not> and before <recognized>.
At slip opinion page twelve, line fourteen insert <, 395> after <385>.
At slip opinion page eighteen, lines four-five remove <if the Secretary of the Interior approves the compact> and replace that text with <once the Secretary of the Interior prescribes procedures to govern gaming that are consistent with that selection>.
At slip opinion page eighteen, line seven insert <See 25 U.S.C. § 2710(d)(7)(B)(vii)> after <seeks.> and before <Big Lagoon Rancheria>.
With the foregoing amendments to the opinion, California's Petition for En Banc Panel Rehearing is DENIED. No subsequent petitions for rehearing may be filed.