California Codes

Cal. Government Code § 98005 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The Gaming Compact offered in Section 98004 shall, to the extent permitted by law, be deemed agreed to, approved, and executed by the State of California in the event a request therefor is duly made by a federally recognized Indian tribe in accordance with Section 98002 and it is not executed by the Governor within the time prescribed in this chapter, provided that, in the event this provision is deemed to be unlawful or ineffective for any reason, or if the tribe in its discretion seeks to compel execution of the Gaming Compact through court action, the State of California hereby submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in any action brought against the state by any federally recognized Indian tribe asserting any cause of action arising from the state’s refusal to execute the Gaming Compact offered in Section 98004 upon a tribe’s request therefor. Without limiting the foregoing, the State of California also submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in any action brought against the state by any federally recognized California Indian tribe asserting any cause of action arising from the state’s refusal to enter into negotiations with that tribe for the purpose of entering into a different Tribal-State compact pursuant to IGRA or to conduct those negotiations in good faith, the state’s refusal to enter into negotiations concerning the amendment of a Tribal-State compact to which the state is a party, or to negotiate in good faith concerning that amendment, or the state’s violation of the terms of any Tribal-State compact to which the state is or may become a party.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int'l Union v. Davis, 981 P.2d 990 (Cal. 1999).
Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int'l Union v. Davis, 981 P.2d 990 (Cal. 1999). · cites it 4× “" (Gov. Code, § 98005.) This section also contains a waiver on the state's part of immunity to suit in federal court for certain compactrelated disputes.”
Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. State of California, 65 F.4th 1145 (9th Cir. 2023). · cites it 5× “In an earlier opinion (Chicken Ranch I), the panel ruled for the Tribes, first noting that California Government Code § 98005 explicitly waived the state’s sovereign immunity from suit.”
Estom Yumeka Maidu Tribe of the Enter. Rancheria v. California, 163 F. Supp. 3d 769 (E.D. Cal. 2016). · cites it 4× “Code § 98005 provides in relevant part: [T]he State of California also submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in any action brought against the state by any federally recognized California Indian tribe asserting any cause of action arising from the…”
Chicken Ranch Rancheria v. State of California, 42 F.4th 1024 (9th Cir. 2022). “See Cal. Gov. Code § 98005 ; see also Coyote Valley II, 331 F.”
Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. California, 813 F.3d 1155 (9th Cir. 2015). “Finally, Pauma is not entitled on cross-appeal to seek redress under IGRA because the plain language of the statute precludes relief when the Tribe and the State actually enter into a Compact.”
In Re Indian Gaming Related Cases, 147 F. Supp. 2d 1011 (N.D. Cal. 2001). “See Cal Gov't Code § 98005; Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Int'l Union v.”
Club One Casino, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 328 F. Supp. 3d 1033 (E.D. Cal. 2018). “nited States in any action brought against the state by any federally recognized California Indian tribe asserting any cause of action arising from the state's refusal to enter into negotiations with that tribe for the purpose of entering into a different Tribal-State compact…”
Fort Indep. Indian Cmty. v. California, 679 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (E.D. Cal. 2009). “IGRA provides a cause of action whereby tribes can enforce the obligation to negotiate in good faith.”
Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California, 700 F. Supp. 2d 1169 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 2× “ilure to ratify the Barstow Compact does not give rise to an IGRA bad faith negotiation claim; thus discovery related to the Compact ratification process cannot lead to admissible evidence; and finally, 4) even if IGRA’s good faith requirement applies to the state’s legislative…”
Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. Unite Here Int'l Union, 346 F. Supp. 3d 1365 (S.D. Cal. 2018). “Pauma alleges the State waived its immunity in the Pauma Compact and California Government Code § 98005. (SAC ¶ 11.”
Pauma Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pauma & Yuima Reservation v. California, 343 F. Supp. 3d 952 (S.D. Cal. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Cal. Gov. Code § 98005 (providing the State "submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States" for a tribe's claim "arising from the state's refusal to enter into negotiations with that tribe for the purpose of entering into a different Tribal-State compact…”
Chemehuevi Indian Tribe v. California, 331 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “See Cal. Gov. Code § 98005 (“[T]he State of California also submits to the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in any action brought against the state by any federally recognized California Indian tribe assert *1101 ing any cause of action arising from the state’s…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.