Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. California

"In a pure federal question case brought in federal court, federal law governs attorney's fees." Disability Law Ctr. of Alaska, Inc. v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., 581 F.3d 936, 940 (9th Cir. 2009). The involvement of state law issues in such a case does not invalidate the rule.

Plaintiff prevailed in a lawsuit against the State of California under the Indian Gaming Regulation Act, which does not allow for shifting of attorney’s fees. Plaintiff then filed a motion in this Court for attorney’s fees under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 

The state argues the federal IGRA’s lack of a fee-shifting provision is dispositive and that a prevailing Plaintiff may not seek attorney’s fees under state law because “in a pure federal question case brought in federal court, federal law governs attorney’s fees.” Disability Law Ctr. of Alaska, Inc. v. Anchorage Sch. Dist., 581 F.3d 936, 940 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Plaintiff argues that there is an exception when a federal question case involves substantial and significant issues of state law (Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. v. Kent, 909 F.3d 272 [9th Cir. 2018])  and that state law was necessarily involved in this case when the state waived their sovereign immunity for IGRA actions via Cal. Gov’t Code § 98005. 

The Court distinguished Kent because it did not involve a federal cause of action. Because an IGRA claim was central to the present case, Plaintiff cannot receive attorney’s fees under state law. 

DENIED.