Opinion
NO. CIV. S-08-2828 LKK/GGH
01-30-2012
LEAGUE TO SAVE LAKE TAHOE and SIERRA CLUB, Plaintiffs, v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, Defendant.
ORDER
The above-captioned case is an action brought by the Sierra Club and the League to Save Lake Tahoe, challenging the decision of the Governing Board of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ("TRPA"), to amend the "Regional Plan" so as to permit the development of piers, buoys, boat ramps and boat slips within "Lake Tahoe's Shorezone." The complaint alleges that this development will increase the discharge of pollutants into Lake Tahoe, threatening its famed clarity, in violation of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact ("Compact"), the rules governing TRPA's actions, state environmental law and federal environmental law.
The court is in receipt of the plaintiffs' notice that the above-captioned case is related to Sierra Club v. TRPA, 2:12-cv-44-WBS-CKD, brought by the Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore against TRPA and Placer County entities. That case challenges the decision of TRPA to amend the Tahoe Regional Plan so as to permit the expansion of Homewood Mountain Resort from 25,000 square feet to over 1 million square feet, and the decision of the Placer County defendants to adopt a plan to permit this expansion. The complaint alleges that this expansion will bring new homes, cars, tourist accommodations, and bulky structures to the area, thus polluting the air and water, and threatening the area's famed calm, rustic and scenic character, all in violation of the Compact, the rules governing TRPA's actions, and state environmental law.
Plaintiff's Notice of Related Cases highlights the common parties and the laws common to both cases, and the fact that both cases involve amendments to the Regional Plan.
TRPA, and the Real Parties in Interest in the 2:12-cv-44 case, oppose the Notice of Related Cases. Defendants highlight the non-common parties, the different laws involved, and the fact that the cases involve different development plans and different amendments to the Regional Plan.
After review of the cases, the court concludes that the above captioned case, 2:08-cv-2828-LKK-GGH, is not related to 2:12-cv-44-WBS-CKD within the meaning of E.D. Cal. R. 123(a), and the court therefore DECLINES to relate them.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
LAWRENCE K. KARLTON
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT