Judge rules against anti-casino group

(Originally published August 15, 2005.)

A Victorville Superior Court judge last Thursday ruled against an anti-casino group's lawsuit that contended the Hesperia Redevelopment Agency's involvement in the Timbisha Shoshone casino project is illegal.

The case, which was filed by Hesperia Citizens for Responsible Development, is a federal not state issue, Judge Stanford Reichert said in making his ruling. Moreover, the city's August 25, 2003 Municipal Services Agreement with Timbisha Shoshone Tribe falls under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a federal law.

"It usually becomes a federal issue," Judge Reichert said.

"He bought the city's package," attorney C. Robert Ferguson, who represented the group, said Friday. "He bought the argument that it's a federal question, not a state question."

The judge also said the California Constitution (state voters approved Proposition 1A in 2000) provides for Indian gaming. But Ferguson said the 87-acre project located within the Hesperia Redevelopment Agency's sphere is a clear violation of California Health and Safety statute 3326.5.

"The city is approving and participating in the construction of an off-reservation casino within city limits," Ferguson said. "It has an additional problem in that the casino is within a redevelopment project area."

Moreover, Ferguson said the redevelopment agency is "indirectly assisting in a gambling institution, and you can't do that. … The agency is clearly involved." Ferguson also contended the gaming project would prevent the redevelopment agency from providing the necessary low- to middle-income housing in the area.

Hesperia Deputy City Attorney William A. Hauck, who represented the city in the case, was pleased but guarded following the ruling.

"We're happy," he said Friday. "But I think they'll appeal. They [the anti-casino group] seem to be dedicated to seeing the casino out of Hesperia."

Hauck was not surprised by the ruling.

"Personally going yesterday [to court] I didn't see how we could lose," Hauck said. "But I'm sure Mr. Ferguson felt the same way. It really depends. It's really difficult to predict."

Regarding the ruling, Hauck agreed with the judge's decision: "The Redevelopment Agency is doing nothing to advance this MSA."

The anti-casino group's timing put it in somewhat of a legal limbo, according to the judge. The lawsuit was filed after the August 2003 signing of the MSA and after the residents reaffirmed the MSA by passing Measure X in March 2004 but before the land was taken into trust by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which must occur before the project can become a reality.

"You're either too early or too late," Reichert said.

"That was a major part of our argument, that the land hasn't been taken into trust," Hauck said.

The Rinaldo Corp., which is developing the project for the Timbisha Shoshone tribe, was represented by two attorneys from Best, Best & Krieger, a law firm originally based in Riverside but recently expanding into Irvine. Rinaldo's lawyers requested the judge allow the developer become a party in the case to protect their client's interests; however, Reichert denied the request "without prejudice."

All sides agreed that the case was extremely extensive.

"The argument was excellent on both sides," the judge said.

Hauck estimates the total amount of case's paperwork, which filled five or six notebooks, is about 2-1/2 feet thick.

"I did extensive research on this," Hauck said. "I didn't find any other case like this anywhere. The Rohnert Park case is about as close as you can get."

Despite losing the case, Ferguson was quick to compliment the judge.

"It was clear the judge had done his homework," Ferguson said. "He put a significant effort into his decision, but I believe the judge's decision was in error."

Not surprisingly, Ferguson leaves the door open for an appeal.

"The judgment is still subject to an appeal," Ferguson said. "Right now my clients are considering it. We'll see what happens."