Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

League to Save Lake Tahoe v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION


January 22, 2010

LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE AND SIERRA CLUB, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, DEFENDANT.
SHOREZONE PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., A NON-PROFIT NEVADA CORPORATION, AKA TAHOE LAKEFRONT OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, PLAINTIFF,
v.
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton

STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL OF SHOREZONE PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC. COMPLAINT; ORDER

WHEREAS, on November 21, 2008, Plaintiffs League to Save Lake Tahoe and Sierra Club (jointly, "League") in Case No. 2:08-CV-02828-LKK-GGH sued the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ("TRPA") over TRPA's adoption of amendments to its Shorezone Ordinances ("Ordinances").

WHEREAS, on December 19, 2008, Plaintiff Shorezone Property Owners' Association ("Association") in Case No. 2:08-CV-03081-LKK-GGH also sued TRPA over its adoption of the Ordinances.

WHEREAS, on January 7, 2009, this Court deemed the Association's and League's respective suits related and, on April 7, 2009, this Court consolidated the two matters.

WHEREAS, the Association previously informed the Court and the parties that it sued over concerns regarding specific language in the Ordinances, ambiguities in the Ordinances, and how TRPA might implement the Ordinances.

WHEREAS, the Association believes that over the past year TRPA's implementation and clarifications of the Ordinances, its implementation of the mooring buoy permitting and registration program, and its adoption on December 16, 2009, of a mooring buoy line that allows for safe mooring practices have all demonstrated TRPA's good faith implementation of the Ordinances' new controls.

WHEREAS, the Association previously informed the Court and the parties that were the Association to come to that conclusion the Association would dismiss the complaint it filed against TRPA.

WHEREAS, the Parties previously stipulated and the Court ordered that "each of the plaintiff's interests may be affected by the Court's adjudication of the claims in the other action" and therefore "each set of plaintiffs in each action may participate fully in the merits briefing and hearing of the other action."

WHEREAS, in dismissing its Complaint against TRPA, the Association intends to participate in the litigation of the League's action against TRPA as the Parties previously stipulated and the Court previously ordered.

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties stipulate as follows:

1. The Association's December 19, 2008, Complaint against TRPA is dismissed, with all parties to bear their own attorneys' fees and costs.

2. The Parties shall meet and confer over any modifications to the Court's November 18, 2009 briefing schedule.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: January 21, 2010

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Benjamin J. Hanelin Attorneys for Plaintiff Shorezone Property Owners' Association, aka Tahoe Lakefront Owners' Association

Dated: January 21, 2010

EARTHJUSTICE Wendy S. Park Attorneys for Plaintiffs League to Save Lake Tahoe and Sierra Club

Dated: January 21, 2010

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY Nicole S. Rinke Attorney for Defendant Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100122

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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