Here is the opinion in Big Lagoon Rancheria v. California — DCT Order Denying Cal Motion to Dismiss
Furthermore, there is no evidence that, in passing Prop. 29, the voters intended to repeal the broad waiver of sovereign immunity they had previously enacted with Prop. 5. Unlike Prop. 5, which took a systemic approach and would have permitted the operation of “Nevada-style casinos” by any tribe that wanted them, Prop. 29 simply approved eleven specific compacts that had already been ratified by the state legislature. The voter information materials on Prop. 29 say nothing about repealing section 98005′s waiver of sovereign immunity; in fact, the Legislative Analyst’s explanation of the measure says nothing about sovereign immunity at all. Rather, it simply explains the effect of the proposal as allowing the Pala compacts to enter into effect. There is thus no basis for concluding that the voters intended the artifact in section 12012.5(e) to change the status of California’s sovereign immunity in connection with IGRA actions.