1906, 144 L.Ed.2d 196 (1999). The federal government’s consent to suit against itself in federal court does not imply its consent to suit in state court, Great N. Life Ins. Co. v. Read, 322 U.S. 47, 54 n. 6, 64 S.Ct. 873, 88 L.Ed. 1121 (1944), and the converse also holds: “a State does not consent to suit in federal court merely by consenting to suit in the courts of its own creation.” Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 676, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999). By the same token, an Indian tribe may consent to suit in tribal court or to arbitration while withholding its consent to suits brought in state or federal court. See Lawrence v. Barona Valley Ranch Resort & Casino, 153 Cal.App.4th 1364, 64 Cal. Rptr.3d 23, 27 (Cal.Ct.App.2007) (<HOLDING>); Campo Band of Mission Indians v. Superior
holding that provisions in a contract established only the tribes willingness to face suit in tribal court and not an explicit waiver of tribal immunily like that in c  l enterprises emphasis added internal quotation marks omitted holding that a tribes waiver did not constitute a consent to suit in state court on negligence claims against it but instead specified that tribal court was the exclusive forum for the resolution of such claims recognizing that many though not all indian tribes make tribal court remedies available for claims against their governments holding that claim preclusion applies to small claims court adjudication and that judicial economy is not served by encouraging resolution of property claims in small claims court and other claims in district court holding that resolution of tribal law disputes are not within federal court jurisdiction