Federal Judge Dale Susan Fischer on Monday afternoon dismissed the city of Temecula's lawsuit against the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, a decision that, tribal officials said, vindicated the tribe's view that the suit was "baseless, absurd and a waste of money."

"Unfortunately, the court ruled in favor of the tribe in today's hearing," said Temecula City Attorney Peter Thorson on Monday, adding that he will discuss the city's options ---- including the possibility of filing an appeal ---- at a future closed session meeting with the council.

Temecula filed suit against the tribe last year to try to force it to pay for an environmental study that, the city argues, would show that the tribe owes the city up to $3 million a year to cover transit and public safety costs associated with the addition of 2,000 slot machines at the tribe's casino.

The new machines were approved by the state's voters in 2008. The ballot measure contained language requiring the tribe to negotiate deals with the city and Riverside County to address added public expenses caused by any expansion.

Last spring, the city and the tribe struck a deal that would have the tribe paying the city $2 million a year for 20 years and $10 million, eventually, for a new interchange at Interstate 15 and Temecula Parkway.

That deal was heralded at the time by both parties as another example of the tribe and the city working in harmony.

But then, in August, the city said the tribe had failed to make the first $2 million payment by a June 30 deadline. Tribal officials responded by noting that the agreement was never meant to take effect until the tribe had negotiated a separate deal with the county.

The city said it was not confident the tribe and the county would ever broker that deal ---- the two parties were separated by hundreds of thousands of dollars ---- and the lawsuit was filed. Tribal officials called the lawsuit "absurd" and a "political ploy" and eventually filed the motion to dismiss that was approved Monday.

The tribe, and representatives of both the state Attorney General's Office and Governor's office, argued that the city's suit should not go forward because the tribe's compact with the state says that the sovereign nation can be sued by the state only after a meet-and-confer session of state and tribal officials that does not resolve the dispute.

Thorson and the city argued that the city does have the right to sue to compel the tribe to prepare a tribal environmental impact report.

"We argued the tribe had waived sovereign immunity on this issue because it had agreed to provisions in the compact that authorize an 'impacted city,' such as Temecula, to sue to compel arbitration and that the tribal EIR was a critical component of the arbitration process," Thorson said in a statement.
"We also argued this position is compelled by a U.S. Supreme Court decision broadly construing arbitration provisions and authorizing a district court to compel all aspects of the arbitration process. The court, however, ruled that the compact needed to specifically authorize a city to sue to compel preparation of a tribal EIR."

During the 2010 election, the three council members running for re-election ---- Mayor Ron Roberts, Councilman Jeff Comerchero and Councilwoman Maryann Edwards ---- were targeted in a "push poll" ---- a telephone survey that seemed designed to cast the candidates in a negative light and the tribe in a positive light.

All three had voted to move forward with the lawsuit against the tribe. Despite the "push poll," all three candidates were re-elected.

Asked whether the city could start lobbying the state to initiate a meet-and-confer with the tribe to resolve the issue, Thorson said, "That was an issue the court raised today, but I don't have a comment on it."

Pechanga Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro said the decision vindicates the tribe's view that the council's lawsuit was "baseless, absurd and a waste of money."
"As we said from the onset, our tribe was under no obligation to reach an agreement with the city of Temecula since no physical changes were made to our casino that required environmental studies and an intergovernmental agreement," Macarro said in a long statement emailed Monday night to The Californian.

"Nevertheless, we offered, as early as 2007, to negotiate and enter into a provisional intergovernmental agreement to help provide both of our communities with certainty and stability with regard to possible future expansions, and to promote collaboration."

The agreement was always meant to take effect only after a similar agreement was reached with the county because, Macarro said, the county of Riverside ---- not the city of Temecula ---- provides law enforcement services to the reservation.

"Yet under the provisional agreement Temecula would have received all of the funding for law enforcement. The tribe also wanted to be certain that all requests had been contemplated and that the County would not seek additional funds. From day one of the negotiations with the city, we made clear that the intergovernmental agreements were to be interdependent.

"We thought city representatives recognized this fundamental principle; otherwise, they would not have approved a clause explicitly requiring the county component also be completed before the agreement took effect."

Macarro continued, saying the lawsuit was "a direct assault" on the economic engine that pulled our people out of poverty and provides thousands of community members with jobs and business opportunities.

"Because of the Temecula City Council's action, little to no desire exists to hand over millions of dollars to a city council that would seek to cause our Tribe, our employees, our business partners, and the charitable causes which we support such harm," he said.

Call staff writer Aaron Claverie at 951-676-4315, ext. 2624.