Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. Hale

July 8, 2009

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARSHA ELIZABETH HALE, DEFENDANT.



FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On June 17, 2009, this court heard plaintiff's motion for default judgment, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), against defendant Marsha Elizabeth Hale.*fn1 Plaintiff Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (hereafter "TRPA"), was represented by attorney Nicole Rinke. No appearance was made on behalf of defendant Marsha Elizabeth Hale (hereafter "Hale").

Upon review of the motion, supporting documents, plaintiff's oral argument, and good cause appearing, the court makes the following findings and recommendations.

BACKGROUND

The complaint, filed December 19, 2008, premises this court's jurisdiction on federal subject matter, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, based on the underlying interstate agreement that controls this action, Pub. Law 96-551, 94 Stat 3233 (Tahoe Regional Planning Compact (hereafter "Compact")) and implementing Code of Ordinances ("Code"); see also Cal. Gov't Code §§ 66891, et seq., and Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 277.200, et seq.

A certificate of service, filed February 19, 2009, demonstrates that the summons and complaint were personally served on defendant on February 3, 2009. Dckt. No. 6.

On March 5, 2009, pursuant to plaintiff's request, the Clerk of the Court entered defendant's default. Dckt. Nos. 7, 9. Plaintiff's request for entry of default provides that defendant "has failed to appear or otherwise respond to the Complaint . . .," which should have been filed and served on or before February 23, 2009. Dckt. No. 7. While defendant was not served with plaintiff's request for entry of default or the Clerk's entry of default, these omissions come within the exception for service upon a defaulting party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(2) ("No service is required on a party who is in default for failing to appear").

Plaintiff filed the instant motion for default judgment on May 7, 2009, Dckt. No. 13, which was served by mail on defendant on May 5, 2009, Dckt. No. 19, at p. 2.

DISCUSSION

Process has been served upon defendant, who has not appeared in this action. See Pacific Atlantic Trading Co. v. M/V Main Express, 758 F.2d 1325, 1331 (9th Cir. 1985) (default judgment void without personal jurisdiction).

Entry of default pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a) effects defendant's admission of the well-pled factual allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) ("An allegation--other than one relating to the amount of damages-- is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied"); Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977), Anderson v. Air West, 542 F.2d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 1976).

The court finds that the complaint states the following claims for which relief can be granted, specifically:

1. Defendant engaged, on two separate occasions in July and October 2008, in grading and disposing of 200 cubic yards of soil onto her real property, located at 495 Lakeridge Court, El Dorado County, California, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 016-512-02, and onto adjacent property owned by the United States Forest Service. The properties are within the geographical boundaries of the Region, and such disposal was initially conducted without authorization from TRPA, and subsequently in violation of a TRPA cease and desist order. See Compl., ¶¶ 31-35, Declaration of Steve D. Sweet ("Sweet Decl.") ¶¶ 3, 6-8, 11-14; Declaration of Ethan Casaday ("Casaday Decl.") ¶¶ 3, 5.

2. Defendant failed to install and/or maintain discharge control devices (known as "Best Management Practices," or "BMP's") on her property during the initial stages of the grading and construction activities, causing an indirect discharge of soil to the waters of the Region. See Compl., ¶¶ 41-45; Sweet Decl., at ¶¶ 3, 5, 6, 8 -13; Casaday Decl., at ¶¶ 3, 5.

3. Defendant made unauthorized modifications to the natural contours of the land by constructing large terraces on her property without the approval of TRPA. See Compl., ¶ 24; Sweet Decl., at ¶¶ ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.