TEMECULA —— Disenrolled members of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians are seeking at least $38 million in damages as a result of being cut off from monthly payments they received from the band's gaming profits while they were tribal members.

The damages are being sought in the second of two lawsuits filed on behalf of more than 130 disenrolled members against individual tribal members.

The first lawsuit, filed in January 2004 in Riverside County Superior Court, accuses individual tribal officials of violating Pechanga law by kicking the members out of the tribe. The second lawsuit, filed this past March, accuses 30-plus tribal members of influencing the disenrollments.

The plaintiffs are seeking a minimum of $38 million in damages based on the $15,000 monthly payments each adult member received while still in the tribe, according to an amendment to the second lawsuit filed Friday. They have been disenrolled for 19 months.

Both lawsuits are testing the bounds of Public Law 280, a federal statute that enables individual Indians to sue other Indians in certain states, including California.

The first lawsuit encountered some turbulence recently. A 4th District Court of Appeal panel provided a tentative decision in July, stating that it did not agree with a lower court's ruling that the lawsuit could be heard in Superior Court. A final decision is expected within about two months. The Pechanga band does not have a tribal court, so the plaintiffs would not have any other legal recourse.

The fate of the second lawsuit is not linked to the first, said Jon Velie, one of the attorneys representing the disenrolled Pechanga members and a specialist on Indian law and sovereignty. So even if the first lawsuit was not allowed to be heard in Superior Court, the plaintiffs would still have a good chance to get the second lawsuit heard, he said.

That's because the defendants in the first case are using the shield of tribal sovereignty, which the defendants in the second lawsuit can't, Velie said.

"These defendants can't make that allegation because they're not tribal officials —— they're just tribal members whose actions have resulted in the stripping of these folks' memberships," Velie said.

The loss of the monthly payments and health benefits has had a devastating effect on some of the disenrolled members, said John Gomez Jr., one of the members who was ejected.

"People have sold their homes or filed for bankruptcy," he said. "A cousin of mine was sick and went into a coma. When she came out, she found out her insurance had been stopped (because she had been disenrolled)."

Pechanga Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro could not be reached for comment. He has consistently maintained that who is and who is not a Pechanga Indian is an internal tribal matter and therefore, the courts cannot interfere.

The disenrolled members claim that they were ejected in violation of the tribe's constitution, adopted in 1978, which delineated membership criteria. The plaintiffs are all direct descendants of Pablo Apis, according to the second lawsuit. Apis was a 19th century Indian widely regarded as chief of the Temecula Indians by whites and Mexicans living in the area.

The constitution defined all individuals listed in the Official Enrollment Book of 1979 as tribal members; in the book, the Apis line is clearly identified as establishing lineal descent for tribal membership, the lawsuit states.

In 1999, the Pechanga band signed a gaming agreement, known as a compact, with the state that enabled the tribe to open its resort and casino in 2002. Because of the casino's success, the tribe was able to give $15,000 per month to each adult member, according to the lawsuit.

Adult tribal members also receive full health care, life insurance and death benefits, retirement benefits, free education for children and hiring preferences within the tribe in its business and governmental entities, the lawsuit states.

The 130-plus members who were disenrolled comprised the largest family in the tribe, out of an adult tribal population of about 990. The lawsuit contends the defendants are trying to decrease the number of adult members to increase their own clout within the tribe and thereby enlarge their share of casino revenues.

Contact staff writer Deirdre Newman at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2623, or dnewman@californian.com.