waiver of tribal sovereign immunity in California

2002L. 280 to represent an abandonment of the federal interest in guarding Indian self-governance.” (Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering (1986) 476 U.S. 877, 892 [ 106 S.Ct. 2305, 2314 , 90 L.Ed.2d 881 ].) However, congressional authorization and tribal consent are separate and independent bases for jurisdiction.

2002L. 280 to represent an abandonment of the federal interest in guarding Indian self-governance.” (Three Affiliated Tribes v. Wold Engineering (1986) 476 U.S. 877, 892 [ 106 S.Ct. 2305, 2314 , 90 L.Ed.2d 881 ].) However, congressional authorization and tribal consent are separate and independent bases for jurisdiction.

2021(Santa Clara Pueblo, supra, 436 U.S. at pp. 58-59; C & L Enterprises, Inc., supra, 532 U.S. at p. 418 ; Maxwell v. County of San Diego (9th Cir. 2013) 708 F.3d 1075 , 1087 (Maxwell); Allen v. Gold Country Casino (9th Cir. 2006) 464 F.3d 1044, 1047 ; McClendon v. United States (9th Cir. 1989) 885 F.2d 627, 629 (McClendon); Lawrence v. Barona Valley Ranch Resort & Casino (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1369 .) Waivers are strictly construed and there is a strong presumption against them.

2008(See Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Superior Court, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 1194, fn. 6 [the court in C&L Enterprises was “careful to describe the effect of the arbitration clause as limited to a consent to arbitrate and enforce any award in state court”]; see also id. at p. 1194 [the analysis in C&L Enteprises does not suggest that acceptance of an arbitration clause constitutes a broader immunity waiver].) The argument an arbitration clause effectuates a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity as to all state court claims, however, was squarely considered in Big Valley Band of Pomo Indi

2008(See Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians v. Superior Court, supra, 133 Cal.App.4th at p. 1194, fn. 6 [the court in C&L Enterprises was “careful to describe the effect of the arbitration clause as limited to a consent to arbitrate and enforce any award in state court”]; see also id. at p. 1194 [the analysis in C&L Enteprises does not suggest that acceptance of an arbitration clause constitutes a broader immunity waiver].) The argument an arbitration clause effectuates a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity as to all state court claims, however, was squarely considered in Big Valley Band of Pomo Indi

2008Auth. (8th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 508, 510 [“[I]t is indisputable [by virtue of the ‘sue and be sued clause’] that the tribe waived, at least to some extent, the Authority’s right to be free from suit. [Fn. omitted.] The question is the *95 extent to which that immunity was waived.”]; Cook v. Avi Casino Enterprises, Inc., supra, 548 F.3d at p. 726, fn. 6 [“the issue whether a ‘sue and be sued’ clause in a tribe’s enabling ordinance effectuates a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity remains a live issue for determination in this circuit”]; see generally Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law (2007)

2008Auth. (8th Cir. 1975) 517 F.2d 508, 510 [“[I]t is indisputable [by virtue of the ‘sue and be sued clause’] that the tribe waived, at least to some extent, the Authority’s right to be free from suit. [Fn. omitted.] The question is the *95 extent to which that immunity was waived.”]; Cook v. Avi Casino Enterprises, Inc., supra, 548 F.3d at p. 726, fn. 6 [“the issue whether a ‘sue and be sued’ clause in a tribe’s enabling ordinance effectuates a waiver of tribal sovereign immunity remains a live issue for determination in this circuit”]; see generally Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law (2007)