Patrick D. Webb, Esq. State Bar No. 82857 WEBB & … 22, 2016 · v. AMY DUTSCHKE, Regional...

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 AND KARENTOGGERY, ESTATE OF HELENCUERRO, ESTATE OF WALTERROSALES’ UNNAMED BROTHER,ESTATE OF DEAN ROSALES, ESTATEOF MARIE TOGGERY, ESTATE OFMATTHEW TOGGERY, APRIL LOUISEPALMER, and ELISA WELMAS

Plaintiffs,v.

AMY DUTSCHKE, Regional Director, BIA;JOHN RYDZIK, Chief, EnvironmentalDivision, BIA; KENNY MEZA; CARLENEA. CHAMBERLAIN; ERICA M. PINTO;ROBERT W. MESA; RICHARD J.TELLOW; PENN NATIONAL GAMINGINC.; SAN DIEGO GAMING VENTURES,LLC; and C.W. DRIVER,

Defendants.

)))))))))))))))))))))))

Civ. No. 15-cv-1145 KJM

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES INOPPOSITION TO FEDERALDEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TODISMISS

Date: September 9, April 22, 2016Time: 10:00 a.m.Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Plaintiffs Have Sufficiently Plead Claims against Dutschke, Rydzik and the UnitedStates, Requiring a Jury Trial of Intertwined Jurisdictional Facts Before the FederalDefendants’ Motion to Dismiss may be Adjudicated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Plaintiffs Have Properly Plead Bivens claims against Dutschke and Ryzdik forViolation of the First and Fifth Amendments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. Dutschke and Ryzdik Have No Qualified Immunity for Personally ViolatingPlaintiffs’ Clearly Established Constitutional, Statutory and Common Law Rights. . . . . . 4

A. Dutschke and Ryzdik’s Violation of Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise ofReligious Burial Rights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

B. Dutschke and Ryzdik’s Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fifth AmendmentRights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Case 2:15-cv-01145-KJM-KJN Document 74 Filed 08/26/16 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

C. Plaintiffs’ Private Rights of Action for Dutschke, Ryzdik and theUnited States’ Violations of NAGPRA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4. The United States’ Violations of the Highest Fiduciary Duty and TrustRelationship with Plaintiffs under the Tucker Acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5. The United States’ Violations under the Administrative Procedure Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

6. The United States’ Violations of Plaintiffs’ Rights under the Federal Tort ClaimsAct and California’s HSC, PRC, Penal Codes and Common Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

7. Plaintiffs Remain Entitled to Declaratory Relief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

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

-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

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Adams v Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179 (9 Cir. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3th

Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Allen v. Jones, 104 Cal.App.3d 207 (1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Angle v. U.S., 709 F.2d 570 (9 Cir. 1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13th

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

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes v. Board of Oil & Gas Conserv., 792 F.2d 782 (9 Cir. 1986).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13th

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

Avery v. United States,680 F2d 608 (9 Cir. 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6th

Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation Com’n, 878 F.2d 1119 (9 Cir. 1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12th

Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal Bureau, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Boisclair v. Sup. Ct., 51 Cal.3d 1140 (1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Bonnischsen v. USDOA, 969 F.Supp. 614 (D. Or. 1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751 (2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7

Cady v. Morton, 527 F.2d 786 (9 Cir. 1975).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13th

Chelini v. Nieri, 32 Cal.2d 480 (1948). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Christensen v. Superior Court (Christensen), 54 Cal.3d 868, 896-7 (1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8. 17, 18

City of Santa Clara v. Andrus, 572 F.2d 660 (9 Cir. 1978).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7th

-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

Coast Indian Cmty. v. U.S., 550 F2d 639 (Ct. Cl. 1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081 (D.C. Cir. 2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Davis v. Passman,442 U.S. 228 (1979).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183 (1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Dine Citizens v. Klein, 747 F.Supp.2d 1234 (D. Col. 2010).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Duncan v. U.S., 667 F.2d 36 (Fed. Ct. Cl. 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

East Bay Asian Local Development Corp. v. State of California, 24 Cal.4th 693 (2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Eden Mem. Park v. Sup. Ct., 189 Cal.App.2d 421 (1961). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

E.E.O.C. v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455 (D.C. Cir. 1996). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Employers Ins. Of Wassau v. Browner, 52 F.3d 656 (7 Cir. 1995).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7th

Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. B.L.M., 455 F.Supp.2d 1207 (D. Nev. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 15

Feminist Women's Health Center, Inc. v. Philibosian (Philibosian), 157 Cal.App.3d 1076 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7

Feres v. United States, 340 U.S. 135 (1950).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

FGS Constructors Inc. v. Carlow (FGS), 823 F.Supp. 1508, 1513 (W.D.S.D.1993), aff’d in part and reversed in part, 64 F.3d 1230 (8 Cir. 1995).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16th

Fletcher v. United States, 730 F.3d 1206 (10 Cir. 2013).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13th

Fox v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.3d 792 (1978). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Friends of the Earth Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Friends of the Earth), 109 F. Supp.2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

-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

Hartman v. Moore,547 U.S. 250 (2006).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Holt v.Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853 (2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Hoover v. Ronwin, 466 U.S. 558 (1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Hopkins v. Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752 (9th Cir. 1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Hornblower v. Masonic Cem. Assoc., 191 Cal. 83 (1923). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Indian Towing Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61 (1955).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Industrial Indemnity v. United States,504 F.Supp. 394 (E.D. Cal. 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Koepke v. Loo, 18 Cal.App.4th 1444 (1993). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

La Cuna de Aztlan Sacred Sites Protection Circle Advisory Comm. v. U.S.D.O.I. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122815 (C.D. Cal. 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

L.A. Haven Hospice Inc. v. Sebellius, 638 F.3d 644 (9 Cir. 2011).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13th

Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Comm. Corp., 337 U.S. 682 (1949).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Love v. United States, 871 F.2d 1488, (9th Cir. 1989). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 15

Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Manchester Band of Pomo Indians, Inc. v. U.S., 363 F.Supp. 1238 (N.D. Cal. 1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

M&T Mort. Corp. v. White, 2006 U.S. Lexis 1903 (E.D.N.Y. 2006).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Milam v. United States, 10 Indian Law Reporter 3013 (D.D.C. 1982). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Minn. Chippewa Tribe v. U.S., 14 Cl. Ct. 116 (1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Mitchell v. United States (Mitchell II), 463 U.S. 206 (1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13

Molzoff v. U.S.,

-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

502 U.S. 301 (1992).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Montgomery v. Board of Retirement, 33 Cal.App.3d 447 (1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Moose v. U.S., 674 F.2d 1277 (9 Cir. 1982).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13th

Morgan v. California, 743 F.3d 728 (9 Cir. 1984).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4th

National Archives and Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157 (2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-5

Navajo Nation v. USDOI , Slip. Op. 13-15710, 9, fn. 7 (2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 13

Newman v. Sathyavaglswaran (Newman), 287 F.3d 786 (9 Cir. 2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 9th

North County Community Alliance, Inc. v. Salazar (North County), 573 F.3d 378 (9 Cir. 2009).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 13th

O’Donnell v. Slack, 123 Cal. 285 (1899). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 18

Osage Tribe of Indians of Okla. v. U.S., 72 Fed. Cl. 629 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Palmquist v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co.(Palmqist), 3 F.Supp. 358 (S.D. Cal. 1933). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 19

People v. Van Horn, 218 Cal.App.3d 1378 (1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Pueblo of San Ildefonso v. Ridlon, 103 F.3d 936 (10 Cir. 1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 15, 20th

Quechan Indian Tribe v. United States (Quechan), 535 F.Supp.2d 1072 (S.D.Cal. 2008).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 12, 16, 18, 19

Rasmussen v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 804 (2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Richelle v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 106 Cal.App.4th 257 (2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Rivas v. Napalitano,714 F.3d 1108 (9 2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2th

Rogers v. U.S., 697 F.2d 886 (9 Cir. 1983).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13th

Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349 (5 Cir. 2001).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10th

-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

Rooney v. United States, 634 F.2d 1238 (9th Cir. 1980). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

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

Ross v. Forest Lawn Mem. Park, 153 Cal.App.3d 988 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Saari v. Jongordon Corp., 5 Cal.App.4th 797 (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

San Carlos Apache Tribe v. U.S., 272 F. Supp. 2d 860 (D. Ariz. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 14

Sands v. Morongo Unified Sch. Dist., 53 Cal.3d 863 (1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286 (1942).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13

Sherbert v. Verner, 174 U.S. 398 (1963).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

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

Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783 (D.C. Cir. 1987). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Sinai Mem. Chapel v. Dudler, 231 Cal.App.3d 190 (1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Sinai Temple v. Kaplan, 54 Cal.App.3d 1103 (1976). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Thody v. Ives,2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24095 (C.D. Cal. 2016). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

United States v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103 (1935).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 13

United States v. Lee,106 U.S. 196 (1882).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

United States v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391 (1973).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853 (9 Cir. 1986).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4th

Usher v. Los Angeles,828 F.2d 556 (9 Cir. 1987).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2th

Utah Power & Light Co. V. United States,

-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

243 U.S. 389 (1971).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Vann v. Kemthpthorne, 467 F.Supp.2d 56, aff’d in part, 534 F.3d 741 (D.C. Cir. 2008). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Waldron v. INS, 17 F.3d 511 (2d Cir. 1994).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Winnemem Wintu Tribe v. Franco, 725 F.Supp.2d 1119 (E.D. Cal. 2010). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Winnemem Wintu Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101467 (E.D. Cal. 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Wolf v. Sup. Ct., 107 Cal.App.4th 25 (2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U. S.( ACE)(Yankton Sioux I), 83 F.Supp.2d 1047 (D. S.D. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 14, 20

Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U. S.( ACE)(Yankton Sioux II), 209 F. Supp.2d 1008 (D.S.D. 2002). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 14, 20

Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U. S.( ACE)(Yankton Sioux III), 258 F. Supp.2d 1027 (D.S.D. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 14, 20

Yassin v. CCA,2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 110393 (S.D. Cal.2011). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Younger v. United States,662 F.2d 580 (9 Cir. 1981).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18th

Statutes, Regulations and Rules

U.S. Const. 1 Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7st

U.S. Const. 10 Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19th

Cal. Const. Art. 1, §4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 18

Cal. Const. Art. 1, §24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

5 U.S.C. § 551(13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5 U.S.C. 702.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 13

5 U.S.C. § 706(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

16 U.S.C. 470aa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

16 U.S.C. 470cc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

18 U.S.C. 1162.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

-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

25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 2, 9, 11

25 U.S.C. 3001(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

25 U.S.C. 3001(9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

25 U.S.C. 3001(13). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

25 U.S.C. 3002.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 9, 10, 11, 20

25 U.S.C. 3002(c)(2) and (4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

25 U.S.C. 3002(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

25 U.S.C. 3009.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

25 U.S.C. 3013.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 9, 10

28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 12

28 U.S.C. 1360.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

28 U.S.C. 1491.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 12

28 U.S.C. 1505.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 12

28 U.S.C. 2674.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 15

28 U.S.C. 2675.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 5

42 U.S.C. 2000cc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

25 C.F.R. 1.4(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

25 C.F.R. 559.1,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

25 C.F.R. 559.2(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

43 C.F.R. 10.1-17.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 9, 15, 20

43 C.F.R. 10.1(b)(3).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 9, 10

43 C.F.R. 10.2(d)(1).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

43 C.F.R. 10.2(f). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

43 C.F.R. 10.2(g)(4).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

43 C.F.R. 10.3-10.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

43 C.F.R. 10.3(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

43 C.F.R. 10.3(b)(1).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

-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

43 C.F.R. 10.4(b). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

43 C.F.R. 10.4(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

43 C.F.R. 10.4(d) and (e). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

43 C.F.R. 10.4(d)(1)(v). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

43 C.F.R. 10.4(d)(1)(vi). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

43 C.F.R. 10.4(e)(i)-(iv).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

43 C.F.R. 10.4(e)(iii). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

43 C.F.R. 10.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11

43 C.F.R. 10.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11

43 C.F.R. 10.10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

43 C.F.R. 10.17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 9, 10

Cal. Evid. C. 669. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 10, 17, 18, 19

Health & Safety Code 7001. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 7, 11

Health & Safety Code 7050.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 11, 18

Health & Safety Code 7050.7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Health & Safety Code 7052. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 18


Health & Safety Code 7054.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 18

Health & Safety Code 7054.7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 18


Health & Safety Code 7100. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 11, 18

Health & Safety Code 7500. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 11, 18


Health & Safety Code 8015-16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 18, 20

Health & Safety Code 8102. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Health & Safety Code H.S.C. 8301.5(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Health & Safety Code 8558-80. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 11

Penal Code 487. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 18, 19

-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

Penal Code 622.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 18, 19

Public Resources Code 5097.5-5097.994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 4, 7, 11, 20

Public Resources Code 5097.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19

Public Resources Code 5097.9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 18, 19

Public Resources Code 5097.98. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 11, 18

Public Resources Code 5097.99. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 18

Public Resources Code 5097.991. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Public Resources Code 5097.993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 5(b)(2)(E). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

14 Cal. Code Regs. 15064.5(e). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

14 Cal. Code Regs. 15064.5(c). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

14 Cal. Code Regs. 15126.4(b)(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 20

Miscellaneous

30 Fed. Reg. 8722. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

78 Fed. Reg. 21398. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

National Center for Cultural Resources and the National NAGPRA Program regulations,Http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

-xi-


Http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/

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 AND KARENTOGGERY, ESTATE OF HELENCUERRO, ESTATE OF WALTERROSALES’ UNNAMED BROTHER,ESTATE OF DEAN ROSALES, ESTATEOF MARIE TOGGERY, ESTATE OFMATTHEW TOGGERY, APRIL LOUISEPALMER, and ELISA WELMAS

Plaintiffs,v.

AMY DUTSCHKE, Regional Director, BIA;JOHN RYDZIK, Chief, EnvironmentalDivision, BIA; KENNY MEZA; CARLENEA. CHAMBERLAIN; ERICA M. PINTO;ROBERT W. MESA; RICHARD J.TELLOW; PENN NATIONAL GAMINGINC.; SAN DIEGO GAMING VENTURES,LLC; and C.W. DRIVER,

Defendants.

)))))))))))))))))))))))

Civ. No. 15-cv-1145 KJM

PLAINTIFFS’ MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS AND AUTHORITIES INOPPOSITION TO FEDERALDEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TODISMISS

Date: September 9, 2016Time: 10:00 a.m.Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller

1. Plaintiffs Have Sufficiently Plead Claims against Dutschke, Rydzik and the UnitedStates, Requiring a Jury Trial of Intertwined Jurisdictional Facts Before the FederalDefendants’ Motion to Dismiss may be Adjudicated

The federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be denied, because Plaintiffs are lineal

descendants with ownership and control of their families’ remains and therefore have private rights

of action for damages and declaratory relief arising from the denial of their constitutional free exercise

of religious burial rights and due process denial of their property rights in their families’ remains,

when they were illegally dug up, trucked and dumped on a CalTrans’ construction site without notice,

consent, or just compensation.

Plaintiffs have sufficiently plead claims against federal BIA officials, Amy Dutschke and John


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

Rydzik, in their individual capacities, and against the United States for acts in their official capacities,

requiring a jury trial of their violations of Plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights, and their

violations of the Native American Graves Protection Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., 43

C.F.R. 10.1-17, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. 2000bb-1, the Religious

Land Use & Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc, California common law,

Health & Safety Code (HSC.) 7050.5, 7052, 7054, 7054.6, 7054.7, 7055, 7500, 8102, 8558-80,

Public Resources Code (PRC) 5097.5-5097.994, and Penal Code 487, and 622.5, as allowed under

the Tucker Acts, 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2), 1491, 1505, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5

U.S.C. 702, Cal. Evid. C. 669, and the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), 28 U.S.C. 2674, before the

Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss may be adjudicated. The Federal Defendants have already

substituted the United States as a Defendant in this action for any official acts of Dutschke and

Ryzdik. ECF 60.

This action is not part of any effort to stop a casino. Rather, Plaintiffs seek to stop the1

wrongful denial of their free exercise of religion and due process by the federal Defendants, when

they breached the government’s general trust and highest fiduciary and ministerial duties to protect

Plaintiffs’ families’ remains from being illegally disinterred, desecrated and removed from the

government’s portion of the Jamul Indian cemetery by the non-federal Defendants in violation of

Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, state and federal law. The federal Defendants remain liable for the

infringement of Plaintiffs’ exercise of their individual First and Fifth Amendment religious burial

rights.

Moreover, this action seeks no relief against the quarter-blood dependent Indian community,

known as the Jamul Indian Village (JIV), which is neither a required or indispensable party to this

action, since it has no lawful right, title, interest or control over, or in, Plaintiffs’ families’ remains,

None of the improperly referenced prior cases are properly before the Court. See,1

Electronic Case File (ECF) 63-1, page 1:27-28, fn. 2, page 6:27-28, fn. 7. None are binding on thisCourt, since: (a) they do not involve the same parties, (b) they do not involve any of the claims here,since it is undisputed that the illegal desecration here did not occur until February of 2014; ECF 64,7:11-18; (c) it is also undisputed that all of the prior actions were dismissed without prejudice forlack of jurisdiction, were not on the merits, and (d) the second is not a final decision having beenimproperly dismissed without jurisdiction during an appeal of the very issues purportedly beingdismissed. See, Pltfs. Motion to Continue Non-Fed. Def. Motion to Dismiss, section 4.

1Pltfs Opp Fed Def 2 MTDnd


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

which are the subject of this lawsuit. 25 U.S.C. 3001, 43 C.F.R. 10.2(d)(1), HSC 7001.

In reviewing a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court must “accept the

complaint’s allegations as true,” and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non moving party.

Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 268 (1994); Navajo Nation v. USDOI , Slip. Op. 13-15710, 9, fn.

7 (9 Cir. 2016); Usher v. Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9 Cir. 1987). The complaint may beth th

dismissed only if "it appears beyond doubt, even when the complaint is liberally construed, 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). Subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ constitutional and

statutory injuries-in-fact exists where the Defendant federal agency’s managers caused the plaintiffs

personal injuries and property damage, and that the injuries are actual and imminent, and that the

relief sought would redress the claimed injuries. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560,

(1992).

Where the jurisdictional facts are disputed and coextensive with the merits of Plaintiffs’

claims, a motion to dismiss cannot be adjudicated without a trial. Disputed and "intertwined

jurisdictional facts must be resolved at trial by the trier of fact." Rivas v. Napolitano, 714 F.3d 1108,

1113 (9 Cir. 2011). "[I]f the jurisdictional issue and substantive claims are so intertwined thatth

resolution of the jurisdictional question is dependent on factual issues going to the merits, the district

court should employ the standard applicable to a motion for summary judgment and grant the motion

to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction only if the material jurisdictional facts are not in dispute and the

moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Otherwise, the intertwined jurisdictional facts

must be resolved at trial by the trier of fact." Rosales v. U.S., 824 F.2d 799, 803 (9th Cir. 1987), citing

Augustine v. United States., 704 F.2d 1074, 1077 (9 Cir. 1983). "To the extent that the jurisdictionalth

facts are disputed... the parties should be allowed to conduct discovery for the limited purpose of

establishing jurisdictional facts before the claims can be dismissed." Siderman de Blake v. Republic

of Argentina, 965 F.2d 699, 713 (9th Cir. 1992).

Here, the disputed infringement of Plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment rights and private

rights of action establish both jurisdiction and the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims. Moreover, the JIV’s

lack of interest in Plaintiffs’ families’ human remains, and the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction



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

under Rule 12(b)(7), may not be adjudicated without a jury trial of these intertwined facts.

2. Plaintiffs Have Properly Plead Bivens claims against Dutschke and Ryzdik forViolation of the First and Fifth Amendments

The federal Defendants concede that “the Supreme Court recognizes an implied damages

remedy under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,” against federal officials in their

individual capacities for which there is no sovereign immunity. ECF 63-1, 3:11-12, citing Davis v.

Passman 442 U.S. 228 (1979), extending Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Federal

Bureau, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971). For example, a federal official who acts outside of his federal

statutory authority is held strictly liable for his trespassory acts. Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478, 489

(1977). See, e. g., United States v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196 (1882), where an ejectment action was allowed

against federal officers to enforce the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment; Love v. United States,

871 F.2d 1488, (9th Cir. 1989), found plaintiffs’ claims for denial of due process against the

individual federal employees were proper Bivens claims.

Moreover, infringement of the First Amendment rights are considered so clearly established

constitutional rights, that even though the Supreme Court has not yet explicitly held an implied

remedy under the Free Exercise Clause, it “assume[s], without deciding, that respondent's First

Amendment claim is actionable under Bivens. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 675-76 (2009), “[t]he

implied cause of action [under Bivens] is the "federal analog to suits brought against state officials

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 254, n. 2 (2006).” Defendants concede

that Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1342 (9 Cir. 1986), recognizes a First Amendmentth

Bivens remedy, as does Thody v. Ives, 2016 U.S. Dist. Lexis 24095, *4 (C.D. Cal. 2016),

acknowledging that Petitioner's claims that he was denied the free exercise of religion are

appropriately presented in a Bivens action. Hence, Plaintiffs do not seek to “extend Bivens liability

to any new context or new category of defendants.”

Contrary to Defendants, Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9 Cir. 2004) did not findth

any comprehensive program of legislation protecting Native American’s from the desecration of their

dead to preclude a Bivens claim, but held that the comprehensive tax code precluded implying a new

Bivens remedy against IRS agents. Moreover, contrary to Defendants’ erroneous assertion, ECF 63-1,

6:3-10, there is no federal preemption with regard to protection of Native American burial rights,



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

rather there is an explicit savings clause in both the federal NAGPRA, and California’s HSC and PRC

for the private rights of action under both state and federal law against federal officials. 25 U.S.C.

3009, 43 C.F.R. 10.1(b)(3) and 10.17, HSC 8012, and PRC 5079.9-5079.994.

“If a federal official...commits an unconstitutional act, he cannot be acting on behalf of the

government because his actions go beyond the scope of his authority and are ultra vires. Larson v.

Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 696-97. Any claim making such constitutional

allegations is not barred by sovereign immunity and will be within the jurisdiction of the federal court.

Id., 701-2. The claim, however, may be made only against the official and not against the United

States, as the official was acting individually and not in his capacity as a government agent. Id.”

United States v. Yakima Tribal Court, 806 F.2d 853, 859 (9 Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1069th

(1987); Morgan v. California, 743 F.3d 728, 731 (9 Cir. 1984), sovereign immunity does not ipsoth

facto exempt federal agencies and officers from the operation of ordinary criminal laws.

3. Dutschke and Ryzdik Have No Qualified Immunity for Personally Violating Plaintiffs’Clearly Established Constitutional, Statutory and Common Law Rights

Federal Defendants also concede that there is no qualified immunity “for conduct [that]

violate[s] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

have known." ECF 63-1, 6:24, 8:14; Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982); Hopkins v.

Bonvicino, 573 F.3d 752, 772 (9th Cir. 1985). A plaintiff need only claim, as here, entitlement to

damages “simply because the regulation was violated” in the exercise of defendants’ ministerial duties

to avoid the defense of qualified immunity. Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 194-96, fns. 12, 14

(1984), “clear violation of the statute or regulation forfeits immunity only with respect to damages

caused by that violation.” Here, Dutschke and Ryzdik had no discretion not to enforce NAGPRA.

Dutschke and Ryzdik are the federal land managers who are personally responsible for

protecting Plaintiffs’ families’ remains, and are alleged to have personally violated Plaintiffs’ clearly

established constitutional, statutory and common law rights by committing 46 acts which violate the

Free Exercise and Due Process Clauses, NAGPRA, HSC, PRC and the California Penal Codes. ECF

1, 27-45, ECF 64, 8-12.

Burial rites or their counterparts have been respected in almost all civilizations fromtime immemorial... They are a sign of the respect a society shows for the deceased andfor the surviving family members. …In addition this well-established cultural tradition



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

acknowledging a family's control over the body and death images of the deceased haslong been recognized at common law. National Archives and Records Admin. v.Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 167-68 (2004).

A. Dutschke and Ryzdik’s Violation of Plaintiffs’ Free Exercise of Religious BurialRights

Dutschke and Ryzdik personally and impermissibly burdened the Plaintiffs’ free exercise of

religion: "by interfering with a believer's ability to observe the commands or practices of his faith,"

as here, when as the federal land managers, they prevented the Plaintiffs’ ownership, control and free

exercise of the right to bury their families’ remains according to their religion, which requires that

their dead not be disinterred and so desecrated in violation of the commands of their religion.

E.E.O.C. v. Catholic University of America, 83 F.3d 455, 460 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

See also, Montgomery v. Board of Retirement, 33 Cal.App.3d 447 (1973), finding no

compelling state interest for substantial denial of free exercise to reject surgery on religious grounds.

“Plaintiff has alleged that the refusal to provide the halal diet has placed a substantial burden on his

ability to exercise his religion. Accordingly, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's statutory claims

under RFRA is denied, [and] the Court denies Defendant[‘s] motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First

Amendment Free Exercise claims.” Yassin v. Corr. Corp. Of Am, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 110393,

**13, 16 (S.D. Cal. 2011).

RFRA waives U.S. sovereign immunity and provides: “A person whose religious exercise has

been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial

proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government.” “Government shall not substantially

burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability,”

unless “application of the burden to the person--(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental

interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1.

P.R.C. 5097.9 provides: “No public agency, and no private party using or occupying public

property, or operating on public property, under a public license, permit, grant, lease, or contract made

on or after July 1, 1977, shall in any manner whatsoever interfere with the free expression or exercise

of Native American religion,” which includes the federal Defendants and agencies. H.S.C. 8301.5(d)

further evidences Appellants’ religious burial rights: “The Legislature recognizes... that the graves



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

and surrounding grounds are [to be] kept, tended, adorned, and embellished according to the desires

and beliefs of the decedent, family, or group.”

Neither the federal Defendants, nor the JIV, has any right to burden the tenets or exercise of

Plaintiffs’ religion. Nor do they have any right to choose between differing customs of Native

American religion, as they did here, preferring JIV’s disinterment of Plaintiffs’ families’ remains

without their consent in violation of their right to the free exercise of their individual religious rights

to protect them from disinterment and desecration.

"Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed.”

Cal. Const. Art. 1, §4. The California Supreme Court holds that in guaranteeing the free exercise of

religion “‘without discrimination or preference,’” Art. 1, §4, the plain language of the clause, suggests

“that the intent is to ensure that free exercise of religion is guaranteed regardless of the nature of the

religious belief professed, and that the state neither favors nor discriminates against religion.” East

Bay Asian Local Development Corp. v. State of California, 24 Cal.4th 693, 719 (2000); see also,

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2751, 2778 (2014), warning “that courts must not

presume to determine...the plausibility of a religious claim.”

Moreover, any federal official’s “action showing a preference for [a] belief will be strictly

scrutinized and must be invalidated unless it is justified by a compelling governmental interest with

which ‘it is closely fitted to further [that] interest.’” Feminist Women's Health Center, Inc. v.

Philibosian (Philibosian), 157 Cal.App.3d 1076, 1088 (1984), finding district attorney’s releasing

16,000 fetuses to a private cemetery, illegally preferred a Catholic religious ceremony without secular

purpose in violation of Art. 1, §4; Fox v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.3d 792, 796 (1978), finding

California’s free exercise guarantee broader than the federal guarantee because “preference is

forbidden,” even when there is no discrimination. “We must never forget that the religious freedom

of every person is threatened whenever government associates its powers with one particular

religious tradition.” Id., 805; Sands v. Morongo Unified Sch. Dist., 53 Cal.3d 863, 874-75 (1991).

Plaintiffs’ rights to protect their dead from illegal possession and desecration in violation of

their personal religious beliefs, are quintessentially individual rights protected by the Free Exercise

Clauses, RFRA and RLUIPA, from infringement by the federal Defendants. U.S. Const. 1st



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

Amendment; Cal. Const. Art. I §§4 & 24; Philibosian. at 1088; Sherbert v. Verner, 174 U.S. 398

(1963), finding employee fired for not working on the Sabbath could not be denied unemployment

benefits; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), Amish children could not be required to attend

school until 16 in violation of their religious beliefs; Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.Ct.

2751, 2775 (2014), finding the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened owners’ religious

practices and was not the least restrictive means of furthering the governmental interest in violation

of RFRA; see also, Holt v.Hobbs, 135 S.Ct. 853, 859 (2015), finding state prison’s grooming policy

substantially burdened a Muslim prisoner’s free exercise of religion in violation of RLIUPA.

B. Dutschke and Ryzdik’s Violation of Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment Rights

Dutschke and Ryzdik also deprived Plaintiffs of their personal property rights in their

families’ remains, “without due process of law and just compensation,” when they allowed them to

be dug up, trucked and dumped on a CalTrans construction site without a pre-deprivation trial of the

triable issues of fact raised in the TAC. U.S. Const. 5 Amendment. Contrary to Defendants,th

ECF 63-1, 6:13, Plaintiffs make no claim for any invasion of real property, but for the denial of their

constitutional, personal injury and personal property rights in their families’ remains. Plaintiffs

personal injury and personal property claims make no collateral attack on any prior real property

transactions, even though void as a matter of law. Whether the government’s portion of the Indian2

cemetery is federal lands or tribal lands, it is owned in fee simple by the United States, and Plaintiffs

are thereby entitled to the federal Defendants protection of their families’ remains thereon from

disinterment and removal without their consent. ECF 1, and 64, Ex. A; 25 U.S.C. 3001(13), 3002;

H.S.C. 7001, 7100; P.R.C. 5097.9-5097.994.

Plaintiffs’ families’ human remains and funerary objects are, as a matter of law, treated as

personal property, not real property, under the exclusive control of Plaintiffs as the next of kin. 25

U.S.C. 3001(13), 3002; H.S.C. 7001, 7100; P.R.C. 5097.9-5097.994. The JIV has no right or interest

City of Santa Clara v. Andrus, 572 F.2d 660, 677 (9 Cir. 1978), citing, inter alia, Utah2 th

Power & Light Co. V. United States, 243 U.S. 389, 392 (1971), “administrative actions taken inviolation of statutory authorization or requirement are of no effect;” Employers Ins. Of Wassau v.Browner, 52 F.3d 656, 665 (7 Cir. 1995), unauthorized agency action may be “disregard[ed] asth

void, a nullity,” which can be evidenced anytime within 6 years of the application of the agencyaction/inaction. No. Co. Comm. Alliance v. Salazar, 573 F.3d 378, 743 (9 Cir. 2009). th



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

in the Plaintiffs’ families’ remains, while Plaintiffs are the living lineal descendants. “[T]he next of

kin...have property rights in the body which will be protected, and for a violation of which they are

entitled to indemnification,” Christensen v. Superior Court (Christensen), 54 Cal.3d 868, 890, 896-

977 (1991), citing O’Donnell v. Slack, 123 Cal. 285, 287-290 (1899), finding “the next of kin have

property rights in the body, possession and control of the body exclusive of others;” see also, Newman

v. Sathyavaglswaran (Newman), 287 F.3d 786, 790-94 (9 Cir. 2002), Sinai Temple v. Kaplan, 54th

Cal.App.3d 1103, 1110 (1976). “[T]he group of rights inhering in...the right to possess, use and

dispose of” the body as property rights “were codified in H.S.C. 7100.” Newman, 788, 793-94.

Since “longstanding recognition in the law of California, paralleled by our national common

law” holds “that next of kin have the exclusive right to possess the bodies of their deceased family

members creates a property interest, the deprivation of which must be accorded due process of law

under the [Fifth and] Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Newman, 788;

Palmquist v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co.(Palmquist), 3 F.Supp. 358, 360 (S.D. Cal. 1933), permitting

action for personal injury damages from unauthorized removal of organs from family remains.

In Newman, the Los Angeles coroner’s harvesting of the parents’ dead children’s corneas,

without notice or consent, was held to be a taking of the families’ property without due process of law

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Newman, at 796-97. There, as here, the taking is

undisputed. The federal Defendants do not deny that Plaintiffs’ families remains were illegally

disinterred, trucked and dumped on CalTrans’ construction site, without the required permits

Dutschke and Ryzdik were personally obligated to see were obtained, before any disinterment and

removal of Plaintiffs’ families’ remains occurred.

Plaintiffs’ property rights in their families’ remains can’t be denied without due process, a trial

of the disputed facts, and just compensation. Id.; Rasmussen v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 804, 808

(2011), granting review to reverse summary judgment due to triable issues of fact concerning

ownership of church property. At this stage of the proceedings, “we must ‘take as true all allegations

of material fact stated in the complaint.” Newman, 788. Just as “the parents had exclusive and

legitimate claims of entitlement to possess, control, dispose and prevent the violation of the... bodies

of their deceased children,” so too, were Plaintiffs’ property rights in their families’ remains here



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

denied without due process and just compensation. Newman, 796. There, as here, the government “did

not merely ‘take a single strand from the bundle of property rights: it chopped through the bundle,

taking a slice of every strand.” Newman, 798.

“The property rights that California affords to next of kin to the body of their deceased

relatives [were] infringed... when [the government allowed the desecration of] those bodies without

the consent of the parents.” Newman, 798. Moreover, the federal Defendants “may not finally destroy

a property interest without first giving the putative owner an opportunity to present his claim of

entitlement.” Newman, 799, finding whether “the failure to afford a pre-deprivation hearing” was

justified “turns on issues of fact that cannot be properly examined” without a trial on the merits.

C. Plaintiffs’ Private Rights of Action for Dutschke, Ryzdik and the United States’Violations of NAGPRA

In addition to Dutschke and Ryzdik’s violations of the Plaintiffs’ First and Fifth Amendment

rights, Plaintiffs have also properly plead at least 46 separate ministerial non-discretionary agency

actions and inactions that Dutschke and Ryzdik personally committed as federal BIA land managers

in violation of NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., 25 C.F.R. 10.1-17, commencing on February 10,

2014. ECF, 1, at 27-45; ECF 64, 8-12. NAGPRA provides a private right of action for these

violations. 25 U.S.C. 3013, and 43 C.F.R. 10.1(b)(3) and 10.17.

Dutschke and Rydzik were put on notice of the Plaintiffs’ ownership and control of Plaintiffs’

families’ remains and funerary objects, their interment on the government’s portion of the more than

7 acre Indian cemetery under Dutschke and Rydzik’s direct control and fiduciary duty to prevent their

desecration, and Plaintiffs’ religious preference as lineal descendants to leave them in place, where

they were originally interred, as required by NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3002, 43 C.F.R. 10.1-10.17, P.R.C.

5097.98, H.S.C. 8015-16, and CEQA, 14 Cal. Code Regs. 15126.4(b)(3),15064.5(e). ECF, 1, 27-28,

ECF 60, 7:22-8:6.

These federal land managers then violated NAGPRA and its regulations by committing the

more than 46 separate ministerial non-discretionary agency actions and inactions, which can be

generally summarized as: (a) failing to stop all forms of construction activity in connection with an

on-going activity, where there has been identification, excavation and removal of Native American

human remains and funerary objects, as here, without a prior written plan of action on Federal lands;



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

and (b) failing to stop all activity in the area of the identification of the human remains, (c) failing to

make reasonable efforts to protect the items discovered before resuming such activity, (d) failing to

provide written notice to the lineal descendants, consultation with known lineal descendants, and (e)

failing to provide a written plan of action for disposition and repatriation, including the kinds of

objects considered cultural items; the planned treatment, care, and handling, including traditional

treatment, of human remains and other cultural items; the place and manner of delivery of Plaintiffs’

families’ 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), 10.4(d) and (e), 10.4(e)(i)-(iv), 10.5, 10.6 and 10.10.

See, the particularized facts alleged at ECF 1, 33-39, and ECF 64, 8-12.

Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U. S.( ACE)(Yankton Sioux I), 83 F.Supp.2d 1047, 1055-1057 (D. S.D.

2000), Yankton Sioux II, 209 F. Supp.2d 1008, 1021-22 (D.S.D. 2002), Yankton Sioux III, 258 F.

Supp.2d 1027, 1032-5 (D.S.D. 2003), San Carlos Apache Tribe v. U.S., 272 F. Supp. 2d 860, 888-90

(D. Ariz. 2003), all find the United States has waived sovereign immunity and provided Plaintiffs a

private right of action for damages and/or declaratory relief against the federal Defendants for breach

of the highest fiduciary duty, nuisance, and negligence, due to violations of NAGPRA, HSC, PRC,

and Penal Codes pursuant to the RFRA, APA, the Tucker Acts, Cal. Evid. Code 669, and the FTCA. 3

25 U.S.C. 3013, 43 C.F.R. 10.1(b)(3) and 10.17. See also, Quechan Indian Tribe v. United States

(Quechan), 535 F.Supp.2d 1072, 1100, 1104-08, 1109-10, 1117-22 (S.D. Cal. 2008).

H.S.C. 8012 also makes NAGPRA’s private right of action, 25 U.S.C. 3013 and 43 C.F.R.

10.1(b)(3) and 10.17, applicable when enforcing the H.S.C. See also Pueblo of San Ildefonso v.

Ridlon, 103 F.3d 936, 939 (10 Cir. 1996); Bonnischsen v. USDOA, 969 F.Supp. 614, 627 (D. Or.th

1997); Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe v. U.S. B.L.M., 455 F.Supp.2d 1207, 1215-17 (D. Nev. 2006);

Contrary to Defendants’ citation of Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349 (5 Cir. 2001), ECF3 th

33-1, 7, it is not precedent in this Circuit, and does not hold that damages are not allowed forviolation of NAGPRA. Unlike here, in Romero, no human remains or funerary objects were allegedto be intentionally removed from federal or tribal land, and the cultural patrimony involved was notowned or controlled by the plaintiff. There, Romero was denied monetary damages due toinsufficient Native American ancestry, since he was not a lineal descendant under 25 U.S.C. 3002.Moreover, Rosales v. U.S. 2007 WL 4233060 (S.D. Cal. 2007) does not hold that the U.S. issovereignly immune from NAGPRA’s private right of action; nor does it collaterally estop any ofPlaintiffs’ claims here, which did not arise until February 20, 2014. See, Pltfs. Motion to ContinueMotion to Dismiss, §4.



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

all recognizing private rights of action under NAGPRA.

It is undisputed that Plaintiffs’ families’ remains were interred on land owned by the United

States, when the federal land managers failed to require permits and written plans and the consent of

the Plaintiffs prior to the intentional excavation, disinterment and removal of the families’ remains

in violation of NAGPRA, HSC, PRC and the Penal Codes. This land was, and still is property owned

by the United States as an ordinary proprietor. ECF 1, ¶¶ 49, 74 & 87, ECF 64, 5:24-6:2. Moreover,

NAGPRA does not require any tribal affiliation for the protection of Native American remains, since

by definition, it protects all lineal descendants whether they are members of a tribe or unaffiliated

individual Indians. 25 U.S.C. 3001-2.4

These federal land managers allowed this desecration without the permits and written plans

of action required by NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3002(c), 43 C.F.R. 10.3(b)(1), 10.4(c) 10.4(d)(1)(v),

104(d)(1)(vi), 10.4(e)(iii), 10.4(e)(iv), 10.5, 10.6, and 16 U.S.C. 470cc, ARPA, 16 U.S.C. 470aa et

seq., ECF 1, 30-36, and the permits required from the San Diego Coroner under H.S.C. 7050.5-7,

7500, and 8580, and P.R.C. 5097.98 and 5097.99. ECF 1,25-30. They also thereby violated the

National Center for Cultural Resources and the National NAGPRA Program regulations,

Http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/ , ECF 1-4, 6-9, Ex. W, since the U.S. is the undisputed title owner

of the land where the Native American human remains (which may be an inhumation or cremation

and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness) were identified, excavated and removed,

and since they have failed to stop work and ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally

accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices where the Native American human remains

are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity, where, as here, the lineal

descendants’ preferences are to preserve the Native American human remains and any items

associated with the human remains that are placed or buried with the Native American human

remains, in place. ECF 1, 32-33, ECF 64, 13-17. Hence, Plaintiffs have more than sufficiently plead

25 U.S.C. 3001(9), including individual people and culture indigenous to the United4

States, 3001(13), “right of possession” “with voluntary consent of an individual,”“next ofkin,” and 3002(a), “ownership and control of Native American” “human remains andassociated funerary objects”“excavated on Federal or tribal lands after November 16,1990,”“shall be (with priority given in the order listed)–“in the lineal descendants of theNative American;” see also, H.S.C. 7001, 7100; P.R.C. 5097.9-5097.994.



Http://www.cr.nps.gov/nagpra/

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

private rights of action for Dutschke, Ryzdik and the United States’ violations of NAGPRA and its

regulations requiring a trial.

4. The United States’ Violations of the Highest Fiduciary Duty and TrustRelationship with Plaintiffs under the Tucker Acts

Dutschke and Ryzdik acting in their official capacities have also violated the U.S.’ highest

fiduciary duty and trust relationship with the Plaintiff Indians, requiring a trial. Seminole Nation v.

United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296 (1942); United States v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391, 398 (1973). The U.S.

has no sovereign immunity from claims for violation of this General Trust Responsibility over

Indians, whether they be claims for damages, injunctive or declaratory relief. Mitchell v. United

States (Mitchell II), 463 U.S. 206, 214, 217, fn. 15 (1983); Bedoni v. Navajo-Hopi Indian Relocation

Com’n, 878 F.2d 1119, 1124, fn. 1 (9 Cir. 1989); and Quechan Indian Tribe v. United Statesth

(Quechan), 535 F.Supp.2d 1072, 1104-08, 1109-10, 1117-22 (S.D.Cal. 2008).

The United States is held to the “most exacting fiduciary standards” in discharging this general

trust responsibility to take “all appropriate measures for protecting” individual Indian interests. U.S.

v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103, 109-10 (1935); Seminole Nation, at 297; Osage Tribe of Indians of

Okla. v. U.S., 72 Fed. Cl. 629, 642 (Ct. Fed. Cl. 2006), quoting Coast Indian Cmty. v. U.S., 550 F2d

639, 652 (Ct. Cl. 1977); “The ‘standard of duty for the United States...is not mere ‘reasonableness’

but the highest fiduciary standards.’” Minn. Chippewa Tribe v. U.S., 14 Cl. Ct. 116, 130 (1987); U.S.

v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391, 398 (1973); Duncan v. U.S., 667 F.2d 36, 45 (Fed. Ct. Cl. 1981)(citing

Coast, supra). “As trustee, the United States is charged with the responsibility of safeguarding, from

both external and internal threats...the rights of Indians.” Milam v. United States, 10 Indian Law

Reporter 3013, 3015 (D.D.C. 1982).

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the “‘Tucker Acts,’ 28 U.S.C. 1346(a)(2),

1491(b)(1), 1505, provide an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity and consent of the United

States to be sued for claims arising under the Constitution, federal statutes and regulations and the

government’s ‘general trust responsibility’ over Indians, particularly where the source of substantive

law relie[d] upon ‘can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government

for the damages sustained.’” Mitchell II, at 214, 216-17.

“Th[e Supreme] Court and several other federal courts have consistently recognized that the



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

existence of a trust relationship between the United States and an Indian...includes as a fundamental

incident the right of an injured beneficiary to sue the trustee for damages resulting from a breach of

the trust.” Mitchell II, at 226. “Never again [would it] be necessary to pass special Indian5

jurisdictional acts in order to permit the Indians to secure a court adjudication on any

misappropriation of ...Indian property by Federal officials that might occur in the future.” “Because

the Tucker Act supplies a waiver of immunity for claims of this nature, the separate statutes and

regulations need not provide a second waiver of sovereign immunity, nor need they be construed in

the manner appropriate to waivers of sovereign immunity.” Mitchell II, at 218.

5. The United States’ Violations under the Administrative Procedure Act

The U.S. has also waived its sovereign immunity for the federal Defendants’ violations of

NAGPRA, RFRA, RLUIPA, HSC, PRC and the Penal Code, in their official capacity, in suits like

this one seeking non-monetary declaratory relief under the APA. 5 U.S.C. 702;Navajo Nation v.

USDOI, Slip. Op. 13-15710, 14; L.A. Haven Hospice Inc. v. Sebellius, 638 F.3d 644, 662 (9 Cir.th

2011); Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes v. Board of Oil & Gas Conserv., 792 F.2d 782, 793 (9 Cir.th

1986); Fletcher v. United States 730 F.3d 1206, 1211, fn. 2 (10 Cir. 2013), APA waived sovereignth

immunity for individual Indians’ breach-of-trust claims against the Interior Secretary.

Here, but for the federal Defendants’ April 10, 2013 erroneous Indian lands decision under

25 C.F.R. 559.1, and July 1, 2013 illegal approval of a site-specific Class III Gaming Ordinance under

25 C.F.R. 559.2(i), Plaintiffs’ families’ remains would not have been disinterred and desecrated. Both

final agency actions are subject to challenge under the APA, since Dutschke and Ryzdik were

personally obligated, when asked, as here, to approve the site of the location of a casino before

construction began; but for this approval Plaintiffs’ families’ remains would not have been excavated

and removed from the cemetery. North County Community Alliance, Inc. v. Salazar (North County),

573 F.3d 738, 749 (9 Cir. 2009); see also, Cady v. Morton, 527 F.2d 786, 789 (9 Cir. 1975), sitingth th

of coal leases on Indian land subject to review; Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne 464

See fn. 31 therein: Seminole Nation v. U. S., 316 U.S. 286, 295-300 (1942); United States5

v. Creek Nation, 295 U.S. 103, 109-110 (1935); Moose v. U.S., 674 F.2d 1277, 1281 (9 Cir. 1982);th

Smith v. U.S., 515 F.Supp. 56, 60 (N.D. Cal. 1978); Manchester Band of Pomo Indians, Inc. v. U.S.,363 F.Supp. 1238, 1243-48 (N.D. Cal. 1973). See also, Angle v. U.S., 709 F.2d 570, 574 (9 Cir.th

1983); and Rogers v. U.S., 697 F.2d 886, 887 (9 Cir. 1983).th



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

F.Supp.2d 993, 1008, 1012-13 (E.D. Cal. 2006) finding the identification of a burial site to be

reviewable final agency action. Moreover, Defendants concede that the approval of the Gaming6

Ordinance and its site is a final agency action. ECF 63-1, 14:26.

Contrary to Defendants, ECF 63-1, 12:24, Plaintiffs’ NAGPRA claims don’t arise because

of the Notice of Intent, but the publication of the prior Indian Lands Decision therein and the siting

for the Gaming Ordinance, which were final agency decisions made by Dutschke and Ryzdik at the

BIA, not the NIGC. 78 Fed. Reg. 21398, “the BIA...will serve as environmental staff to the NIGC...as

such the BIA is the contact for further information, in lieu of the NIGC.” All further challenges to

these decisions were directed to the BIA at the 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, address, and directed

to Ryzdik. Id. Moreover, the United States has now been substituted as a defendant for all official

acts by Ryzdik, including those he took on behalf of the NIGC. ECF 60.

Moreover, the federal Defendants concede that the APA also waives sovereign immunity for

ministerial “denial of statutory and Constitutional relief” and “failures to act,” including, but not

limited to, their failure to take discrete agency action required by NAGPRA, RFRA, RUILlPA, the

APA, common law, HSC, PRC and Penal Codes, before disinterment and removal of Plaintiffs’

families’ remains. ECF 63-1, 15:5. See, ECF 1, 27-45 and ECF 64, 8-12, describing Dutschke and

Ryzdik’s 46 separate failures to require permits and written plans for the disinterment and removal

of Plaintiffs’ families’ remains.

Similar failures to take discrete agency action required by NAGPRA provided jurisdiction and

a waiver of sovereign immunity in Yankton Souix I, at 1054-57, Yankton Souix II, at 1026-27, Yankton

Souix III, at 1035-36, and San Carlos Apache Tribe at 887, noting NAGPRA “governs the intentional

excavation or removal of Native American human remains and objects from federal or tribal lands

and does not allow excavation or removal unless items are removed or excavated pursuant to an

See also, finding sufficient pleading of final major federal actions requiring review, Dine6

Citizens v. Klein, 747 F.Supp.2d 1234, 1263 (D. Col. 2010); La Cuna de Aztlan Sacred SitesProtection Circle Advisory Comm. v. U.S.D.O.I. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122815, *4, *22 (C.D. Cal.2011); Winnemem Wintu Tribe v. Franco, 725 F.Supp.2d 1119, 1145 (E.D. Cal. 2010)granting leaveto amend NAGPRA claims; Winnemem Wintu Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS101467, *15-18, *35 (E.D. Cal. 2014); Friends of the Earth Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(Friends of the Earth), 109 F. Supp.2d 30, 32 (D.D.C. 2000), finding final agency action in sitingof 3 casinos on the Mississippi.



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

ARPA permit,...” and consultation and consent of the lineal descendants, as required under 25 U.S.C.

3002(c)(2), (4) and 43 C.F.R. 10.1-17; Fallon Pauiute-Shoshone Tribe v. BLM, 455 F.Supp.2d 1207,

1213, 1216-17 (D. Nev. 2006) arbitrarily failing to: find affiliation, consult and repatriate; Pueblo of

San Ildefonso v. Ridlon, 103 F.3d 936, 938-39 (10 Cir. 1996) finding failure to repatriate as requiredth

by NAGPRA,

An agency's "failure to act" is itself a final agency action, as here. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(13),

defining "agency action" as "the whole or a part of an agency rule, order, license, sanction, relief, or

the equivalent or denial thereof, or failure to act" (emphasis added); Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d

783, 793 (D.C. Cir. 1987), “the court can undertake review [of administrative inactions] as though

the agency had denied the requested relief." Where an agency action required by law is "unlawfully

withheld or unreasonably delayed," 5 U.S.C. § 706(1), the agency's failure to act is, in effect, a final

agency action subject to judicial review. Cobell v. Norton, 240 F.3d 1081, 1095 (D.C. Cir. 2001);

Vann v. Kemthpthorne, 467 F.Supp.2d 56, 72, 74, fn. 14, aff’d in part, 534 F.3d 741 (D.C. Cir.

2008), the Secretary's failure to act regarding the Cherokee election was a final agency action subject

to judicial review, and actions for injunctive relief against individual tribal officers acting outside the

scope of their authority are “not actions against the sovereign;” Waldron v. INS, 17 F.3d 511, 518 (2d

Cir. 1994), agency action is void automatically for failure to follow its regulations if it affects

"fundamental rights derived from the Constitution or a federal statute;" M&T Mort. Corp. v. White,

2006 U.S. Lexis 1903, *21 (E.D.N.Y. 2006), APA presumes review of agency action “unlawfully

withheld.”

6. The United States’ Violations of Plaintiffs’ Rights under the Federal Tort Claims Act and California’s HSC, PRC, Penal Codes and Common Law

The FTCA, 28 U.S.C. 2674, also waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for

damages from tort claims arising from constitutional and statutory violations, where the United

States’ liability is generally determined by the law of the state where the duty was breached. Feres

v. United States, 340 U.S. 135, 141 (1950). Molzoff v. U.S. 502 U.S. 301, 305 (1992); Indian Towing

Co. v. United States, 350 U.S. 61, 64-65, 68-69 (1955); Love v. United States, 871 F.2d 1488, (9th

Cir. 1989), finding plaintiffs’ conversion claims against the FMHA could be stated under the FTCA;



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

and Quechan, at 1105-08.

Therefore, the federal Defendants remain individually liable as land owners and managers for

their criminal violations of the HSC, PRC, Penal Codes and common law, having failed to prevent

the non-federal Defendants from disinterring, desecrating and removing Plaintiffs’ families’ remains

in violation of, and without the permits, consultation, and consent of the lineal descendants required

by the HSC, PRC and Penal Codes, and the common law, as described in ECF 1, 27-45 and ECF 64,

8-12.

Contrary to federal Defendants, ECF 63-1, 8-9, Plaintiffs have properly plead presentation of

their FTCA claims, when Dutschke and Ryzdik received written notice of Plaintiffs’ claims in their

Amicus Brief in 13cv1920, ECF 75-2, on February 11, 2015, more than the requisite six months

without final disposition, before Plaintiffs amended their complaint to state FTCA claims on May 20,

2016, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2675. FGS Constructors Inc. v. Carlow (FGS), 823 F.Supp. 1508, 1513

(W.D.S.D.1993), aff’d in part and reversed in part, 64 F.3d 1230 (8 Cir. 1995). th

Here, as in FGS, presentment under 28 U.S.C. 2675(a) has been satisfied. Dutschke and

Ryzdik were given notice in the amicus brief: (1) of the general bases of Plaintiffs’ desecration

claims, (2) that Plaintiffs were seeking in excess of $250,000, for the desecration of 5 family

members’ remains, which amount was subsequently amended to $4 million and received by federal

Defendants on September 23, 2015, and (3) more than six months has passed without final disposition

of Plaintiffs’ claims. ECF 64, 8:12-14. All of which is now memorialized in the September 23, 2015

Form 95, ECF 65, Ex. O, pursuant to Broudy v. United States, 722 F.2d 566, 568-69 (9 Cir. 1983),th

Avery v. United States, 680 F2d 608, 610-11 (9 Cir. 1982), Industrial Ind. Co. v. United States, 504th

F.Supp. 394, 399 (E.D. Cal. 1980).

“[T]he presentment requirements of section 2675(a) do not require the claimant to set forth

his legal theories of recovery...if the administrative claim ‘fairly apprises the government of the facts

leading to the claimant’s injury...’” FGS at 1513, citing Rooney v. United States, 634 F.2d 1238,

1242-3 (9th Cir. 1980). Here, the Defendants are estopped by the Local Rules to deny they received

notice of Plaintiffs’ claims in the amicus brief more than 6 months before the FTCA claim was first

filed. ECF 64, 8:11-14.



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

Federal Defendants erroneously complain that the original complaint was filed within 6

months of the February 11, 2015 service of the amicus brief. However, the original complaint did not

plead jurisdiction under the FTCA, which was only added in the FAC, SAC and TAC, beginning on

May 23, 2016, well after Plaintiffs’ claims were deemed denied on August 11, 2015, six months after

the amicus brief was received on February 11, 2015. Contrary to the federal Defendants, they received

both Plaintiffs’ Amicus Brief upon electronic filing, and they received Plaintiffs’ Opposition to their

first MTD, ECF 40, 13:3-6 (pointing out the February 11, 2015 FTCA claim presentation), pursuant

to Local Rule 135(a), (f), (g), and Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E).

The California Supreme Court holds that a Native American’s religious burial rights are

protected by many:

statutes [that] reflect a policy of respecting the religious, ethical and emotionalconcerns of close relatives and others having an interest in assuring that thedisposition of human remains is accomplished in a dignified and respectful manner.Of particular significance is H.S.C. 7054.7, which prohibits, absent consent by thestatutory right holder...the commingling of cremated remains...[and] 7050.5 prohibitsdesecration of human buried remains, and makes special provision for properdisposition of Native American remains discovered during excavation. TheLegislature’s findings include express recognition of Native American ‘concernsregarding the need for sensitive treatment and disposition’ of such remains.”Christensen, at 897.

These “statutes governing the disposition of human remains exist not only to ensure removal

of dead bodies and protect public health, but also to prevent invasion of the religious, moral, and

esthetic sensibilities of the survivors. These laws were enacted to prevent the type of harm alleged

here to the statutory rights holders, and create a duty to those persons....[such] conduct may be found

to be negligent per se.” Christensen, at 893-94, 896, 897.

California also recognizes a fiduciary relationship between the federal government and

Indians. Boisclair v. Sup. Ct., 51 Cal.3d 1140, 1149 (1990). Additionally, California recognizes that

special relationships give rise to fiduciary relationships, see Wolf v. Sup. Ct., 107 Cal.App.4th 25, 30

(2003); Estate of Sanders, 40 Cal.3d 607, 615 (1985); Richelle v. Roman Catholic Archbishop, 106

Cal.App.4th 257, 273 (2003), for which, if breached, there is no sovereign immunity, and which

breach may be awarded damages and injunctive relief for per se negligent violation of both state and

federal statutes, including NAGPRA, HSC, PRC, and Penal Codes, pursuant to Evid. Code 669 and

the Restatement Second, Torts. Quechan at 1106-10, fn. 15, 1118-23, citing Younger v. U.S. 662 F.2d



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

580, 582 (9 Cir. 1981). th

In addition to their NAGPRA violations, Dutschke and Rydzik, as federal land managers with

direct control and the highest of fiduciary duties to protect Plaintiffs’ families’ remains from such

desecration, personally violated Art 1, §4 of the California constitution, and failed to require the

necessary permits and plans of action in violation of HSC 7050.5, 7052, 7054, 7054.6, 7054.7, 7055,

7100, 7500, 8011, 8015-16, 8558, 8580; PRC 5097.5, 5097.9, 5097.98, 5097.99, 5097.991, 5097.993;

and Penal Code 487, 662.5. ECF, 64, 7-13. All of which constitute per se negligence under Cal. Evid.

Code 669. Quechan, at 1100-08.

These constitutional and statutory violations have proximately caused Plaintiffs’ damages

and entitled them to injunctive relief to prevent further desecration of their families’ remains and to

compel compliance with the required state and federal permits for construction on the federal or tribal

lands. Id.; see also, 25 U.S.C. 3001(5) and (15), 43 C.F.R. 10.3-10.6, which Quechan holds may be

used to establish California’ standard of care. This desecration has caused, and will continue to cause,

irreparable damage to the Plaintiffs’ free exercise of their religion and personal injury by knowingly

and/or willfully mutilating, disinterring, wantonly disturbing, and willfully possessing their families’

remains, without Plaintiffs’ consent or any authority of law. Id.

Such conduct thereby created “liability for the serious emotional distress caused by such

egregious, but clandestine, misconduct,” which caused “Plaintiffs to suffer physical injury, shock,

outrage, extreme anxiety, worry, mortification, embarrassment, humiliation, distress, grief and

sorrow.” “The exhibition of callousness or indifference, the offer of insult and indignity, can, of

course, inflict no injury on the dead, but they can visit agony akin to torture on the living.”

Christensen, 887, 895.

“[T]he next of kin...[also] have property rights in the body which will be protected, and for

a violation of which they are entitled to indemnification,” under both California common and

statutory law. Christensen, at 890, citing O’Donnell v. Slack (1899) 123 Cal. 285, 289; People v. Van

Horn, 218 Cal.App.3d 1378, 1391-92 (1990), finding standing to contest illegal possession of remains

under P.R.C. 5097.99; Quechan at 1100, 1108, 1121-22, P.R.C. 5097.9, finding Native Americans’

standing and private right of action for interference with Native American religion and damage to



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

ceremonial sites; and Palmquist at 360; all finding a private right of action for per se negligence in

violation of California law, like PRC 5097.9, under Evid. C. 669.

The common law has long recognized personal injury damages arising from desecration,

mutilation or disinterment of the dead and funerary objects. Allen v. Jones, 104 Cal.App.3d 207

(1980); Saari v. Jongordon Corp., 5 Cal.App.4th 797, 803-4 (1992); Sinai Mem. Chapel v. Dudler,

231 Cal.App.3d 190, 197 (1991) ; Ross v. Forest Lawn Mem. Park, 153 Cal.App.3d 988, 993-94

(1984); Chelini v. Nieri, 32 Cal.2d 480 (1948). AA 192, 195, 197-203.

A surviving spouse, entitled to custody and possession of a deceased person for thepurposes of preservation and burial, may maintain an action for damages againstanyone who unlawfully and without authority mutilates or destroys such body.Palmquist v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co. (S.D. Cal. 1933) 3 F.Supp. 358, 360.

These constitutional and statutory violations also properly plead conversion since the federal

officials prevented the Plaintiffs from exercising their immediate right thereunder to possession,

control and disposition of their families’ remains under state and federal law. See, Pltfs. Opp to Non-

Fed Defs 2 MTD, section 4, filed herewith.nd

Plaintiffs’ families’ disinterred remains are also subject to the criminal jurisdiction of

California over the desecration of the dead, and the civil torts arising from a violation of PRC 5097.5,

5097.9, Penal Code §§ 487, 662.5, pursuant to the 10 Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and Pub.th

Law 280, 18 U.S.C. 1162, 28 U.S.C. 1360, and 25 C.F.R. 1.4(b), and the DOI July 2, 1965 Secretarial

Order, 30 Fed. Reg. 8722, making applicable “all of the laws, ordinances, codes, resolutions, rules

or other regulations of the State of California,... governing...any real or personal property, belonging

to any Indian...held in trust by the United States and located within the State of California.” See for

e.g., Quechan, 1100-08, 1117-23. 7

7. Plaintiffs Remain Entitled to Declaratory Relief

Plaintiffs remain entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief: (a) preventing the continuing

desecration of their families’ remains by the federal Defendants, (b) providing a written plan of action

This is the same criminal subject matter jurisdiction California exercises over the7

disinterment and desecration of a veteran’s remains at any National Cemetery in California. Criminalconduct by Indians which causes injury is within California jurisdiction under Public Law 280, 18U.S.C. 1162, 28 U.S.C. 1360, and will be deemed the proximate cause of an injury. Koepke v. Loo,18 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1449 (1993).



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

specifically including Plaintiffs’ ownership, custody and control of, and traditional treatment, care,

handling and disposition of their families’ remains, (c) repatriating their families’ remains, (d)

preventing any further disturbance to their families’ remains, until their preference for their

preservation in place is carried out, and (e) in the event their preference is not carried out, providing

that their families’ remains will be re-interred with appropriate dignity, as required by 25 U.S.C.

3002, 43 C.F.R. 10-1-10.17, National NAGPRA Program regulations, P.R.C. 5097.5-5097.99,

H.S.C. 8015-16, and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs.15126.4 (b)(3) and 15064.5(c). ECF

64, 7:22-8:6, Yankton Souix I, at 1054-57, Yankton Souix II, at 1026-27, Yankton Souix III, at 1035-

36; Fallon, at 1213, 1216-17; Pueblo of San Ildefonso, at 938-39. See, ECF 64, 13-17.

Plaintiffs’ also have standing to enjoin desecration of human remains on and off public

construction sites. Eden Mem. Park v. Sup. Ct., 189 Cal.App.2d 421, 424-25 (1961), restraining Cal.

Dept. Pub. Works from condemning a dedicated cemetery to construct a freeway; Hornblower v.

Masonic Cem. Assoc., 191 Cal. 83, 91 (1923); the Yankton Sioux I, at 1060, Yankton Souix II, at

1021-22, and Yankton Souix III at 1032-5, enjoining excavation and construction because there was

a substantial likelihood that Plaintiffs’ human remains were suffering irreparable injury, Plaintiffs

had no alternative remedy, and the balance of harm was, as here, clearly in Plaintiffs’ favor; See also,

Viejas Band v. Padre Dam MWD, SDSC Case No. 2010-00093203 (2010), enjoining Water District’s

$20 million pumping station to prevent desecration of the Viejas burial site in violation of California

law. ECF 1-2, 28-35, Ex. O.

Conclusion

For all of these reasons, the federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss should be denied.

Dated: August 26, 2016 WEBB & CAREY APC

/s/Patrick D. Webb Patrick D. Webb



Patrick D. Webb, Esq. State Bar No. 82857 WEBB & … 22, 2016 · v. AMY DUTSCHKE, Regional...

Documents

Transcript of Patrick D. Webb, Esq. State Bar No. 82857 WEBB & … 22, 2016 · v. AMY DUTSCHKE, Regional...