People ex rel. Lungren v. Community Redevelopment Agency

In People ex rel. Lungren v. Community Redevelopment Agency (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 868 65 Cal. Rptr. 2d 786, the Attorney General brought an action against a community redevelopment agency to set aside the agency's contract with an American Indian tribe. The tribe was not named as a party. The contract provided the redevelopment agency would transfer property to the tribe for the purpose of developing a gaming casino. The Attorney General challenged the legality of the redevelopment agency's actions in agreeing to relinquish city-owned property and placing it beyond the state's civil and criminal jurisdiction. The redevelopment agency sought dismissal of the Attorney General's complaint on the ground the tribe was an indispensable party not amenable to suit because of sovereign immunity. In construing the second clause of section 389, subdivision (a), the court said it was unclear whether, as a practical matter, the action would impede the tribe's ability to protect its interest. The court stated: "The issue raised in the present case is the legality of the redevelopment agency's actions in agreeing to relinquish City-owned property and placing it beyond the reach of the civil and criminal jurisdiction of the state. The actions of the Tribe in entering into the contract with the redevelopment agency are not challenged. The Tribe's ability to look after its own interests in this setting would be limited to the opportunity to argue that the redevelopment agency's actions were permitted by California law. It would thus appear that, although the Tribe and the redevelopment agency have interests under the contract that are not identical, the Tribe's object in the present litigation--establishing that the Agency acted lawfully in entering into the contract--would duplicate that of the Agency and would be adequately represented by the Agency in the present litigation." (People ex rel. Lungren v. Community Redevelopment Agency, supra, 56 Cal. App. 4th at p. 877.)