
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, and Tahoe Reno Commercial Center, LLC, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ORR WATER DITCH CO., Defendant, and Nevada State Engineer, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-17021.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 15, 2009.
    Filed April 7, 2010.
    
      Don Springmeyer, Esquire, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, Stephanie Zehren-Thomas, Hester & Zehren, Louisville, CO, for Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians.
    G. David Robertson, Esquire, Kirk Co-wan Johnson, Esquire, Robertson & Bene-vento, Reno, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Before: HALL, W. FLETCHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Tahoe Reno Commercial Center, LLC (“TRCC”) appeals the dismissal of its appeal of Nevada State Engineer Ruling 5747 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In a separate disposition filed today, we reverse and remand the district court’s decision dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, an appeal of the same ruling by the Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians. United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co., 600 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir.2010).

TRCC complains that the State Engineer’s ruling, inter alia, failed to grant TRCC’s applications for water permits to which it was allegedly entitled. TRCC represents that it has separately appealed the State Engineer’s ruling in state court, that it does not seek to have a federal court adjudicate its appeal, and that it filed its appeal in federal court only as a protective measure.

TRCC has not alleged that the grant or denial of water rights to it would have an effect on any party’s rights under the On-Ditch Decree. Thus, the district court does not have jurisdiction over an appeal of the part of the State Engineer’s ruling adjudicating TRCC’s applications. As we explain in our published opinion, “To the extent that groundwater may be allocated consistent with protection of the Tribe’s decreed rights, the amount of the allocations and distribution among the applicants are of no concern to the district court.” United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co., 600 F.3d at 1160. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of TRCC’s appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and leave TRCC to pursue its remedies in state court.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     