Opinion
JOHN L. MARSHALL, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Stateline, Nevada, ANDREW B. SABEY, SCOTT B, BIRKEY, COX, CASTLE & NICHOLSON LLP, San Francisco, California, Counsel for Defendant Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
PLACER COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE VALERIE D. FLOOD, KARIN E. SCHWAB, Auburn, California, Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF PLACER and BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF PLACER.
REMY MOOSE MANLEY, LLP, WHITMAN F. MANLEY, HOWARD F. WILKINS III, JOHN T. WHEAT, Sacramento, California, Attorneys for Defendants and Real Parties in Interest HOMEWOOD VILLAGE RESORTS, LLC and JMA VENTURES, LLC.
TRENT W. ORR, WENDY S. PARK, Earth justice, San Francisco, CA, Counsel for Plaintiffs SIERRA CLUB and FRIENDS OF THE WEST SHORE.
MICHAEL LOZEAU, Lozeau Drury LLP, Oakland, CA, Counsel for Plaintiff FRIENDS OF THE WEST SHORE.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' AND DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION FOR PARTIAL RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT AND DISSOLUTION OF INJUNCTION
WILLIAM B. SHUBB, District Judge.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Joint Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment and Dissolution of Injunction. The joint motion seeks a determination that Defendants have partially satisfied the Court's Memorandum and Order Re: Cross Motions for Summary Judgment issued on January 4, 2013 (ECF No. 69; hereafter, the "Order") and that prospective application of the unsatisfied portion of the Order is no longer warranted or equitable in light of the settlement reached by the parties and new evidence produced to satisfy the Order. After consideration of the joint motion and all supporting documents, the Court rules and finds as set forth below.
Order
1. The Homewood Mountain Resort EIR Alternative 6 Economic Viability Analysis and EPS Peer Review of Homewood Economic Viability Analysis provide substantial evidence supporting the adequacy of the discussion of the financially viability of alternatives in the Environmental Impact Report-Environmental Impact Statement ("EIR-EIS") for the Homewood Ski Area Master Plan ("Project"). This new evidence partially satisfies the Court's Order on the Alternative 6 analysis issue and demonstrates that the public and decisionmakers were not misled by the EIR-EIS's description of the financial viability of Alternative 6.
2. In January 2014, following the issuance of the Court's Order, Plaintiffs and HMR entered into a Settlement Agreement. Under the Settlement Agreement, HMR agreed to submit a revised application to the County of Placer ("County") and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ("TRPA") to reduce the Project by thirteen (13) units, among other modifications.
3. The County and TRPA will determine whether additional environmental review is necessary based on the proposed modifications to the project as well as any new information regarding the feasibility of Alternative 6. See CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5(a); TRPA Rules of Procedure, Rule 6.15.1. The agencies will make this determination in the first instance. See Eller Media Co. v. Community Redevelopment Agency 108 Cal.App.4th 25, 39-44 (2003). The County and TRPA will adopt additional findings, as necessary, to memorialize this determination.
The State "CEQA Guidelines" appear at title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing at section 15000.
4. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) provides in relevant part that a party may obtain relief from a judgment or order if, among other things, "(5) the judgment has been satisfied... or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5)-(6) (emphasis added). "[This] Rule codifies the courts' traditional authority... to modify or vacate the prospective effect of their decrees[.]" Bellevue Manor Assoc. v. United States, 165 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 1999) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The Rule "is designed to provide judges with discretion and flexibility in modifying a decree." United States v. Asarco Inc., 430 F.3d 972, 979 (9th Cir. 2005).
The parties move for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) in the alternative. "Rule 60(b)(6) serves as the catch-all provision, conferring on the court broad discretion to relieve a party from final judgment upon such terms as are just, provided that the motion is made within a reasonable time and is not premised on one of the grounds for relief enumerated in clauses (b)(1) through (b)(5)." Spacey v. Burgar, 207 F.Supp.2d 1037, 1048 (C.D. Cal. 2001), citing Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863 (1988) (internal quotes and emphasis omitted).
5. The parties have met their burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to demonstrate changed circumstances warranting relief. The proposed modifications to the Project under the Settlement Agreement and the new evidence regarding the feasibility of alternatives constitute changed circumstances warranting partial relief from the Court's Order and dissolution of the injunction requiring recirculation of the EIR-EIS.
Based on these determinations, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Joint Motion for Partial Relief from Judgment and Dissolution of Injunction is GRANTED. The injunction issued with the Court's January 4, 2013 Order is dissolved. The hearing set for Monday, May 5, 2014 is taken off calendar.
IT IS SO ORDERED.