STIPULATION AND ORDER TO PERMIT FILING OF A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDER

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to Rule 143 of the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California and Rules 15, 20, and 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, attorneys for Plaintiffs Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, Blue Lake Rancheria, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, and Hopland Band of Pomo Indians (collectively, Plaintiffs), on the one hand, and attorneys for Defendants Gavin Newsom, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of California, and Defendant State of California (collectively, Defendants), on the other hand, stipulate as follows:

1. Plaintiffs, on February 27, 2019, filed a first amended complaint wherein Plaintiff, Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, was added as a plaintiff in this action.

2. The Robinson Rancheria, a federally recognized Indian tribe, was a member of the Compacting Tribes Steering Committee that participated in the negotiations that are the subject of this action, and two additional negotiation sessions with the State of California that took place in June and July of 2019, and wishes now to join this litigation as a plaintiff.

3. Under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may, "at any time, on just terms, add . . . a party" and, under Rule 15(a)(2), a party may amend its pleadings with the written consent of the opposing party. See also 4 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 20.02[a][ii] (3d ed. 2009) (The proper procedure for a party to add plaintiffs is to seek leave to amend the complaint.).

4. The Robinson Rancheria shares the same interests, asserts the same claims, and seeks the same relief as the Plaintiffs in this litigation with respect to the same act of Congress, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 2701, et seq. (IGRA). All of the Robinson Rancheria's claims arise out of the same series of transactions and occurrences. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(1).

5. Adding the Robinson Rancheria as a plaintiff in this action by way of a second amended complaint, therefore, serves the interests of judicial economy by eliminating the need for the filing of a second, duplicative suit.

6. The proposed second amended complaint is identical to the first amended complaint but for the addition of the Robinson Rancheria as a plaintiff. Joinder of the Robinson Rancheria and the filing of a second amended complaint to reflect that joinder will neither delay this action nor prejudice any party.

7. In light of the foregoing, Defendants do not oppose and hereby stipulate to the filing of the proposed second amended complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit A, in which the Robinson Rancheria is added as a plaintiff.

8. Plaintiffs stipulate that Defendants' answer to the first amended complaint (Doc. #10) shall be deemed responsive to the second amended complaint.

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' above stipulation, (Doc. 23), for good cause shown, is it HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file the Second Amended Complaint, a copy of which was filed with the parties' stipulation, within 5 calendar days of the date this Order is filed.

Pursuant to the terms of the stipulation, Defendants' answer to the First Amended Complaint, (Doc. 10), is deemed responsive to the Second Amended Complaint, and Defendants shall not be required to file a separate response to the Second Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.