Council OKs support of casino lawsuit

<p>The Petaluma City Council has authorized the city to sign a document in support of a legal appeal that aims to prevent land for a proposed casino in Rohnert Park from being taken into trust.</p><!-- Nothing to do. The paragraph has already been output --><p>City Council members on Oct. 19 voted 6-0, with Teresa Barrett absent, to authorize signing of an “amicus curiae,” a brief filed by a party not involved in a particular case, but designed to assist a court in reaching its decision.</p><p>“The cities of Sebastopol and Cloverdale also signed on,” said Councilmember Mike Healy, who brought the issue to the council in a closed session. “The brief is important because it shows the perspective of local governments in the way they view how the proposed casino would effect local cities.”</p><p>On June 6, 2008, East Bay attorney Stephan Volker filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of the Interior’s decision to take 254 acres of land into trust for the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria and claiming that the plaintiffs — Stop the Casino 101 Coalition and some of its members, including Healy — would suffer harm if the casino is built.</p><p>In April, Judge Susan Illston of the 9th District Court in San Francisco threw out the lawsuit, stating that she agreed with the defendants and the tribe that because the plaintiffs have not alleged that they have suffered any injury, they have no standing in the case, and therefore, the court has no jurisdiction.</p><p>The plaintiffs appealed the decision in June. The main opening brief was filed by Novato attorney Elliot Bien in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday.</p><p>“This appeal follows the dismissal of a complaint ... on the sole ground that the plaintiffs failed to identify any injury sufficient for article standing. But the complaint shows they are local residents with personal and concrete interests directly threatened by appellees United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, et al. BIA has issued a decision and legal position that would drastically affect property in their neighborhood,” a portion of the appeal states.</p><p>The amicus curiae needed to be filed by Monday and the defendants’ brief and reply briefs subsequently will be filed.</p><p>“Within the next several weeks, the briefing period will be concluded,” Healy said. “Then, a hearing date will be scheduled, usually for several months later.”</p><p>(Contact Dan Johnson at dan.johnson@arguscourier.com)</p>