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.

Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 29, 2012

SIERRA CLUB AND FRIENDS OF THE WEST SHORE,
PLAINTIFFS,
v.
TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, COUNTY OF PLACER, AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF PLACER, DEFENDANTS,
v.
HOMEWOOD VILLAGE RESORTS, LLC AND JMA VENTURES, LLC, DEFENDANTS AND REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST.

ORDER RE: APPLICATION FOR INITIAL EX PARTE EXTENSION TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING PLAINTIFFS' OPENING BRIEF ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The court is in receipt of plaintiffs' application for initial ex parte extension to extend time for filing plaintiffs' opening brief on their motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 29.) Plaintiffs complain that in filing its administrative record, defendant Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ("TRPA") incorporated by reference the record submitted by defendant Placer County ("the County") but supplemented that record with additional documents that were unique to TRPA's administrative record.

Plaintiffs have moved separately to exclude extra-record evidence from TRPA's administrative record, and that motion is scheduled to be heard on July 30, 2012. (Docket No. 28.) However, pursuant to the court's Status Order, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is due by July 17, 2012. (Apr. 17, 2012, Status Order (Docket No. 26).) Plaintiffs state that they cannot complete their brief in support of that motion before they know what documents are properly included in TRPA's record, and request that the deadline for their opening brief be extended to either: (1) thirty days after their motion is denied; (2) thirty days from plaintiffs' receipt of TRPA's corrected record; or (3) a deadline mutually agreed upon by the parties if plaintiffs' motion challenging TRPA's record is resolved among the parties.

Defendants object that this will delay the proceedings, but fail to show how such a delay would prejudice them. Because plaintiff's application for additional time appears reasonable and no party has shown that it would be prejudiced, the court will grant plaintiffs' requested extension of time.

The County additionally states that if plaintiffs' request is granted, it should be limited to the motion for summary judgment relating to TRPA's approval, and the proceeding related to the County's approval continue according to the dates set in the April 17, 2012, Status Order. However, the court has already determined that such bifurcation of the proceeding would be inefficient and the County has not explained why it would be prejudiced by the court considering the matters together.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' application for an extension be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED. The court will determine the date plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment shall be filed after it rules on the motion scheduled to be heard on July 30, 2012.

20120629

© 1992-2012 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.