Chicken Ranch Bingo

Register here: http://gg.gg/v3bnk
Owned and operated by the Jamestown Band of Me-Wuk Indians, Chicken Ranch Casino has been in operation for over 33 years. Originally founded as a Bingo Hall, we’ve expanded to house almost 350 of. See 8 photos and 2 tips from 102 visitors to Chicken Ranch Bingo & Casino. ’Fights are more than worth it.
*Chicken Ranch Bingo Jamestown Ca
*Chicken Ranch Bingo Schedule
(Jamestown, CA) – Chicken Ranch Rancheria Me-Wuk Indians of California has officially unveiled plans for the Chicken Ranch Casino & Resort, a brand-new gaming resort and conference center in Jamestown, slated to open late 2023. The ground-up development will be nested below the casino’s current location, incorporating the slope beneath Table Mountain to greet Highway 108 and the gateway to Yosemite. The state-of-the-art property will be the first of its kind in the area and lead the charge in ushering a new era of economic development for the city of Jamestown and beyond.

For 36 years Chicken Ranch Casino has operated primarily as a gaming destination, a venture that began solely as a Bingo Hall in 1985. Since then, the business has seen several iterations which have included the addition of gaming machines in 2000, a renovation in 2011 that brought the current Western theme motif with additional machines and Ranch House Restaurant, as well as the more recent expansion and brand refresh in 2019 that saw the building of an Event Hall (new home to Bingo), table games, The Roost café bistro and over 350+ new machines.

Over the years Chicken Ranch Casino has grown from being a small casino with a loyal guest following to becoming more of a destination for gamers far and wide. But as regional tourism has grown in recent years, specifically in relation to Yosemite National Park, the deficit in lodging has become more and more glaring. And tribal Chairman Lloyd Mathiesen saw an opportunity to step up and serve that growing demand for lodging: “We’ve taken a careful and calculated strategy in growing our business to meet the needs of our guests throughout the region with the thrill and escape of gaming and great food. But the idea of a resort was always in the back of our minds. We’ve all seen the tourist and transient dollars pass through our community over the years. It just makes sense to offer those people the opportunity to stay awhile.”

In addition to the resort, the new business will be bringing a world-class conference center to the fold, giving not only local businesses and organizations the space and amenities to hold their events, the center will offer a seamless solution for Bay Area companies seeking to save on travel costs without losing out on the quality of space, and with the added benefit of outdoor team-building activities at their doorstep.

An array of amenities will be shared publicly via their website www.chickenranchcasino.com and social media as the large-scale project progresses. But the new property is expected to bring 250 additional employment opportunities with highly competitive wages and benefits to the region.

Chicken Ranch Casino is privately owned and operated by the Chicken Ranch Rancheria Me-Wuk Indians of California and currently employs 283 employees from the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada’s Motherlode. The Casino offers 603 gaming machines, table games, smoke-free gaming, Bingo five nights a week, Ranch House restaurant and The Roost café bistro.
For questions please call 209.984.3000 and ask for the Marketing department.Ingrassia v. Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino, 676 F. Supp. 2d 953 (E.D. Cal. 2009)District Court, E.D. California
676F. Supp. 2d953(2009)No. CIV-F-09-1266 AWI SMS.
United States District Court, E.D. California.December 16, 2009.
*956 David L. Axelrod, Sierra Law Office of David L. Axelrod, Sonora, CA, for Plaintiffs.
Lester John Marston, Rapport and Marston, Ukiah, CA, for Defendants.ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
ANTHONY W. ISHII, Chief Judge.I. History[1]
In 1986, Plaintiffs Bruce Alan Ingrassia and Millimac Enterprises produced a number of original visual images among them, ’MiWuk Indian Riding on a Chicken.’ Plaintiffs printed this image on hats, shirts, and other souvenirs. Defendants Chicken Ranch Rancheria Tribe and Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino purchased these items for resale. Plaintiffs retained the copyright under the arrangement. It is unclear whether there was a written contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants. The business relationship lasted for a number of years and ended at an unspecified time. In 2007, Plaintiffs discovered that Defendants were selling items with the image of ’MiWuk Indian riding on a Chicken’ produced without Plaintiffs’ permission.
Plaintiff sued Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne on June 9, 2009, alleging breach of contract, common counts, and copyright infringement. Defendants removed the case to federal court on July 20, 2009 under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Defendants then filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1) due to tribal sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs opposed the motion. The court requested additional briefing and evidence which the parties provided. The matter was taken under submission without oral argument.II. Legal StandardsChicken Ranch Bingo Jamestown Ca
’Sovereign immunity limits a federal court’s subject matter jurisdiction over actions brought against a sovereign. Similarly, tribal immunity precludes subject matter jurisdiction in an action against an Indian tribe.’ Alvarado v. Table Mt. Rancheria,509F.3d1008, 1015-16 (9th Cir.2007). ’Suits against Indian tribes are.. barred by sovereign immunity absent a clear waiver by the tribe or congressional abrogation.’ Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe,498U.S.505, 509, 111S. Ct.905, 112L. Ed. 2d1112(1991); Stock West Corp. v. Lujan,982F.2d1389, 1398 (9th Cir.1993). ’There is a strong presumption against waiver of tribal sovereign immunity.’ Demontiney v. United States,255F.3d801, 811 (9th Cir.2001). Waiver of sovereign immunity by a tribe may not be implied and must be expressed unequivocally. Kescoli v. Babbitt,101F.3d1304, 1310 (9th Cir.1996). Similarly, congressional abrogation of sovereign immunity may not be implied and must be ’unequivocally expressed’ in ’explicit legislation.’ Krystal Energy Co. v. Navajo Nation,357F.3d1055, 1056 (9th Cir.2004). The plaintiff bears the burden of showing a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity. See Breakthrough Mgmt. Group, Inc. v. Chukchansi Gold Casino & Resort,2007WL2701995, *2, 2007U.S. Dist. LEXIS67422, *7 *957 (D.Colo.2007); Dontigney v. Conn. BIAC,2006WL2331079, *3, 2006U.S. Dist. LEXIS55625, *10 (D.Conn.2006); Morgan v. Coushatta Tribe of Indians of La.,214F.R.D.202, 205 (E.D.Tex.2001).
Tribal sovereign immunity applies in both federal and state courts. Snow v. Quinault Indian Nation,709F.2d1319, 1321 (9th Cir.1983), citing Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez,436U.S.49, 58, 98S. Ct.1670, 56L. Ed. 2d106(1978). ’The immunity .. extends to suits for declaratory and injunctive relief,’ and ’is not defeated by an allegation that [the tribe] acted beyond its powers.’ Imperial Granite Co. v. Pala Band of Mission Indians,940F.2d1269, 1271 (9th Cir.1991). Tribal sovereign immunity is not dependent on a distinction between on-reservation and off-reservation conduct nor is it dependent upon a distinction between the governmental and commercial activities. Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Techs.,523U.S.751, 754-55, 118S. Ct.1700, 140L. Ed. 2d981(1998). A tribe’s sovereign immunity extends both to tribal governing bodies and to tribal agencies which act as an arm of the tribe. Allen v. Gold Country Casino,464F.3d1044, 1046 (9th Cir. 2006). Tribal sovereign immunity extends to tribal officials when acting in their official capacity and within the scope of their authority but not to individual tribe members generally. United States v. Oregon,657F.2d1009, 1013 n. 8 (9th Cir.1981).III. DiscussionA. Tribal Sovereign Immunity
Defendants claim tribal sovereign immunity. Plaintiffs deny that either of the Defendants have immunity from suit.
Plaintiffs provide no reason for their position with regards to the Chicken Ranch Rancheria tribe. ’The Supreme Court has consistently treated tribal recognition decisions by Congress or the executive as entitled to a large degree of deference.’ Artichoke Joe’s Cal. Grand Casino v. Norton,278F. Supp. 2d1174, 1179 (E.D.Cal.2003). The Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California are included on a list of federally acknowledged tribes promulgated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior. 72 Fed.Reg. 13648 (March 22, 2007). ’[T]he inclusion of a group of Indians on the Federal Register list of recognized tribes would ordinarily suffice to establish that the group is a sovereign power entitled to immunity from suit.’ Cherokee Nation v. Babbitt,117F.3d1489, 1499 (D.C.Cir.1997).
Plaintiffs assert that ’no record has been presented to establish that the Casino operates as an arm of the Tribe’ sufficient to warrant immunity. Doc. 13, Plaintiffs’ Opposition, at 5:17-18, quotations and citations omitted. Plaintiffs state ’Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino was and is a business entity or association, the form of which is unknown at this time’ and that Chicken Ranch Rancheria tribe owned a business entity that ’conducted business activities open to the general public, including but not limited to gaming and retail sales of clothing and other paraphernalia, primarily based at the commercial facility commonly known as Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino.’ Doc. 1, Ex. 4, Complaint at 4:10-22. Defendants provide the declaration of the Tribal Administrator, which states ’The Tribe conducts gaming on its tribal trust lands under the fictitious business name `Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino’ pursuant a Tribal-State class III gaming compact with the State of California and the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The Tribe, dba, the Chicken Ranch Bingo and Casino is not a corporation under either tribal, state or federal law.’ Doc. 17, Amended Costa Declaration, at 2:4-9. Defendants have established their entitlement to tribal sovereign immunity.*958 B. Abrogation and Waiver
The burden is thus on Plaintiffs to show waiver of immunity from suit. Plaintiffs, explicitly or implicitly, make four arguments: the U.S. Congress abrogated immunity in the Copyright Act, the tribal-state compact waives immunity, the contract with Plaintiffs waives immunity, and removal to federal court waives immunity.
Plaintiffs state, ’It may well be found that Congress indeed intended the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101, et seq., as amended, to apply to all persons, foreign and domestic, Indian and otherwise.’ Doc. 13, Plaintiffs’ Opposition, at 6:11-14. As a general matter, ’Congress may not abrogate state sovereign immunity pursuant to its Article I powers.’ Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. v. College Sav. Bank,527U.S.627, 636, 119S. Ct.2199, 144L. Ed. 2d575(1999). Federal copyright law is enacted pursuant to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, commonly termed the copyright and patent clause. Plaintiffs provide no compelling argument that tribal immunity should not apply in copyright suits.
Plaintiffs state, ’Defendants have waived their purported defense of `sovereign immunity’ specifically or implicitly, by accepting and agreeing to a tribal-state compact, as contemplated in accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), 25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.’ Doc. 19, Plaintiffs’ Additional Memorandum, at 3:16-20. Plaintiffs argument fails for a number of reasons. Among them, ’The IGRA waives tribal sovereign immunity in the narrow category of cases where compliance with the IGRA is at issue.’ Lewis v. Norton,424F.3d959, 962 (9th Cir.2005), citing Mescalero Apache Tribe v. New Mexico,131F.3d1379, 1385 (10th Cir.1997). IGRA ’prescribes the conditions under which Indian tribes may engage in commercial gaming on their reservations.’ City of Roseville v. Norton,348F.3d1020, 1022 (D.C.Cir.2003). This suit does not have to do with IGRA compliance so the waiver does not apply.
Plaintiffs argue that the original contract through which the artwork was produced constitutes waiver. They do not provide the actual written documents, instead producing a declaration of Plaintiff Ingrassia in which he states,Defendant CHICKEN RANCH paid me cash back in 1986, said `NO’ to the work for hire, did not pay for any artwork, and received a computer receipt. Also on or about June 19, 1995, I delivered an invoice to SANDRA FELICE on behalf of CHICKEN RANCH. The invoice clearly states that the transaction was not a work for hire (with the check mark in the NO box). The tribe never paid me for the artwork, nor were they billed for the artwork or any of the setups. It was thus clearly understood and accepted by the CHICKEN RANCH Defendants, without any protestations of immunity, that a lawful copyright was asserted and invoked, and that ownership of the artwork and of the copyright was retained by me and my company.
Doc. 22, Ingrassia Declaration, at 2:19-3:2. Even assuming Plaintiff Ingrassia has accurately described the contents of the contract, it is plain that there is no waiver. Plaintiffs argue that since Defendants did not affirmatively raise immunity at the time of contract formation, immunity is lost. That is an incorrect statement of law. Tribal immunity applies unless Plaintiffs can show an affirmative waiver in the contract. Plaintiffs have not provided any indication that an affirmative waiver exists within the contract.
The last issue raised is whether removal from state to federal court constitutes waiver of the immunity. The case law is not unanimous on the matter. In an older *959 case from the District of Nevada, the court found that removal did constitute waiver: ’In the instant case, Respondent Tribe filed a notice of removal joinder .. We have found no Ninth Circuit case law directly on point regarding the question of whether a defendant Indian tribe’s removal of a case to federal court constitutes a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity. However, Indian tribal sovereign immunity is closely analogous to a state’s immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.’ State Eng’r v. S. Fork Band of the Te-Moak Tribe of W. Shoshone Indians,66F. Supp. 2d1163, 1172-73 (D.Nev.1999). Though the case law concerning removal’s effect on the Eleventh Amendment was mixed, the District of Nevada concluded that immunity was waived in that case. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court found that ’removal is a form of voluntary invocation of a federal court’s jurisdiction sufficient to waive the State’s otherwise valid objection to litigation of a matter (here of state law) in a federal forum.’ Lapides v. Bd. of Regents,535U.S.613, 624, 122S. Ct.1640, 152L. Ed. 2d806(2002). The U.S. Supreme Court noted that for the claims in question, ’a state statute had waived sovereign immunity from state-law suits in state court.’ Lapides v. Bd. of Regents,535U.S.613, 616, 122S. Ct.1640, 152L. Ed. 2d806(2002).
Case law setting out the bounds of the Eleventh Amendment can not be directly applied to tribal sovereign immunity without analysis as ’Tribal sovereign immunity.. is not precisely the same as either international law sovereign immunity or sovereign immunity among the states.’ In re Greene,980F.2d590(9th Cir.1992), Rymer concurrence. The sovereign immunity of foreign states is generally governed by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.) which includes a provision stating, ’A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case in which the foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication.’ 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1). The U.S. Supreme Court terms Native American tribes ’domestic dependent nations.’ Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe,498U.S.505, 509, 111S. Ct.905, 112L. Ed. 2d1112(1991), citations omitted. The Ninth Circuit has specifically examined whether they are foreign or domestic governments and concluded they are domestic. Krystal Energy Co. v. Navajo Nation,357F.3d1055, 1059 (9th Cir. 2004). It follows that the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 does not apply to Native American tribes. See Allen v. Gold Country Casino,464F.3d1044, 1048 (9th Cir.2006).
Subsequent to Lapides, an opinion from the Northern District examined the issue with regard to tribal immunity and concluded that removal does not constitute waiver: Redeeming pop slots rewards.`Tribes are, foremost, sovereign nations.’ American Vantage Companies, Inc. v. Table Mountain Rancheria,292F.3d1091, 1096 (9th Cir.2002). Even though Indian tribes are not foreign sovereigns, id., the Supreme Court has nevertheless found that in determining whether an Indian tribe has waived its sovereign immunity, `[i]nstructive here is the law governing waivers of immunity by foreign sovereigns.’ Id. at 421 n. 3; see also Kiowa Tribe [of Oklahoma v. Manufacturing Technologies, Inc.,523U.S.751, 759 [118S. Ct.1700, 140L. Ed. 2d981] (1998)] (`[W]e find instructive the problems of sovereign immunity for foreign countries.’).Foreign sovereigns do not waive their sovereign immunity merely by removing to federal court. See Rodriguez v. Transnave Inc.,8F.3d284, 289 (5th Cir.1993). Otherwise, a foreign sovereign *960 would be forced to `choose between asserting removal or the immunity defense, but not both.’ Id. Among the reasons cited for this legal principle are the need for a `uniform body of law in this area’ and the distinctly federal nature of foreign policy and relations. Id. Similarly, because `Congress possesses plenary power over Indian affairs,’ South Dakota v. Yankton Sioux Tribe,522U.S.329, 343, 118S. Ct.789, 139L. Ed. 2d773(1998), `Indian tribes fall under nearly exclusive federal, rather than state, control.’ American Vantage Companies, 292 F.3d at 1096. Tribal sovereignty `exists only at the sufferance of Congress and is subject to complete defeasance.’ United States v. Wheeler,435U.S.313, 323, 98S. Ct.1079, 55L. Ed. 2d303(1978). Given the distinctly federal nature of Indian tribal sovereignty, the court finds the Supreme Court’s analogy with foreign sovereigns persuasive in this setting. Forcing Indian tribes sued in state court to choose between removal or waiver of sovereign immunity would interfere with federal plenary power and interests in this arena. See Kiowa Tribe, 523 U.S. at 759, 118S. Ct.1700(`Like foreign sovereign immunity, tribal immunity is a matter of federal law.’). Cf. Maynard v. Narragansett Indian Tribe,984F.2d14, 15-16 (1st Cir.1993) (relying on Indian tribe’s sovereign immunity against claims after removal).Sonoma Falls urges that the court equate sovereign immunity with Eleventh Amendment and apply cases finding waiver of Eleventh Amendment im

https://diarynote.indered.space