Sierra Club et al v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 1/30/2012 DECLINING to relate cases as noticed in 4 Notice of Related Case. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE
and SIERRA CLUB,

11
Plaintiffs,
NO. CIV. S-08-2828 LKK/GGH

12
v.
13
14

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING
AGENCY,

O R D E R

Defendant.

15

/
16
17

The above-captioned case is an action brought by the Sierra

18

Club and the League to Save Lake Tahoe, challenging the decision

19

of the Governing Board of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

20

(“TRPA”), to amend the “Regional Plan” so as to permit the

21

development of piers, buoys, boat ramps and boat slips within “Lake

22

Tahoe’s Shorezone.”

23

will

24

threatening its famed clarity, in violation of the Tahoe Regional

25

Planning Compact (“Compact”), the rules governing TRPA’s actions,

26

state environmental law and federal environmental law.

increase

the

The complaint alleges that this development
discharge

of

1

pollutants

into

Lake

Tahoe,

1

The court is in receipt of the plaintiffs’ notice that the

2

above-captioned case is related to Sierra Club v. TRPA, 2:12-cv-44-

3

WBS-CKD, brought by the Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore

4

against TRPA and Placer County entities.

5

decision of TRPA to amend the Tahoe Regional Plan so as to permit

6

the expansion of Homewood Mountain Resort from 25,000 square feet

7

to over 1 million square feet, and the decision of the Placer

8

County defendants to adopt a plan to permit this expansion.

9

complaint alleges that this expansion will bring new homes, cars,

10

tourist accommodations, and bulky structures to the area, thus

11

polluting the air and water, and threatening the area’s famed calm,

12

rustic and scenic character, all in violation of the Compact, the

13

rules governing TRPA’s actions, and state environmental law.

That case challenges the

The

14

Plaintiff’s Notice of Related Cases highlights the common

15

parties and the laws common to both cases, and the fact that both

16

cases involve amendments to the Regional Plan.

17

TRPA, and the Real Parties in Interest in the 2:12-cv-44 case,

18

oppose the Notice of Related Cases.

19

common parties, the different laws involved, and the fact that the

20

cases involve different development plans and different amendments

21

to the Regional Plan.

22

Defendants highlight the non-

After review of the cases, the court concludes that the above

23

captioned case, 2:08-cv-2828-LKK-GGH, is not related to

24

44-WBS-CKD within the meaning of E.D. Cal. R. 123(a), and the court

25

therefore DECLINES to relate them.

26

////
2

2:12-cv-

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

DATED:

January 30, 2012.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3