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

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 6/29/2012 ORDERING Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Extension of Time 29 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. (Krueger, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12

SIERRA CLUB and FRIENDS OF THE
WEST SHORE,

13

NO. CIV. 12-44 WBS CKD
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16

v.

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

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY,
COUNTY OF PLACER, and BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
PLACER,

17
Defendants,
18
v.
19
20

HOMEWOOD VILLAGE RESORTS, LLC
and JMA VENTURES, LLC,
Defendants and Real
Parties in Interest.

21
22

/
23
----oo0oo----

24
25

The court is in receipt of plaintiffs’ application for

26

initial ex parte extension to extend time for filing plaintiffs’

27

opening brief on their motion for summary judgment.

28

29.)

(Docket No.

Plaintiffs complain that in filing its administrative
1

1

record, defendant Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (“TRPA”)

2

incorporated by reference the record submitted by defendant

3

Placer County (“the County”) but supplemented that record with

4

additional documents that were unique to TRPA’s administrative

5

record.

6

Plaintiffs have moved separately to exclude extra-

7

record evidence from TRPA’s administrative record, and that

8

motion is scheduled to be heard on July 30, 2012.

9

28.)

(Docket No.

However, pursuant to the court’s Status Order, plaintiffs’

10

motion for summary judgment is due by July 17, 2012.

11

2012, Status Order (Docket No. 26).)

12

cannot complete their brief in support of that motion before they

13

know what documents are properly included in TRPA’s record, and

14

request that the deadline for their opening brief be extended to

15

either: (1) thirty days after their motion is denied; (2) thirty

16

days from plaintiffs’ receipt of TRPA’s corrected record; or (3)

17

a deadline mutually agreed upon by the parties if plaintiffs’

18

motion challenging TRPA’s record is resolved among the parties.

19

(Apr. 17,

Plaintiffs state that they

Defendants object that this will delay the proceedings,

20

but fail to show how such a delay would prejudice them.

21

plaintiff’s application for additional time appears reasonable

22

and no party has shown that it would be prejudiced, the court

23

will grant plaintiffs’ requested extension of time.

24

Because

The County additionally states that if plaintiffs’

25

request is granted, it should be limited to the motion for

26

summary judgment relating to TRPA’s approval, and the proceeding

27

related to the County’s approval continue according to the dates

28

set in the April 17, 2012, Status Order.
2

However, the court has

1

already determined that such bifurcation of the proceeding would

2

be inefficient and the County has not explained why it would be

3

prejudiced by the court considering the matters together.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ application

5

for an extension be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

6

will determine the date plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment

7

shall be filed after it rules on the motion scheduled to be heard

8

on July 30, 2012.

9

DATED:

June 29, 2012

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

The court