Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02295/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02295-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

Joint Status Conference Report and - 1 -

Request for Extension of Stay 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Craig A. Pridgen, Esq. (SB# 058056) 

MCQUAID, BEDFORD & VAN ZANDT, LLP

2800 5th Street, Suite 130 

Davis, CA 95618 

Telephone: (530) 756-0200 

Facsimile: (530) 756-0202 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ett Bertagnolli 

 IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ETT BERTAGNOLLI, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, 

ET AL., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:06-CV-02295-MCE-KJM 

JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE 

STATEMENT, REQUEST FOR 

EXTENSION OF STAY TO FINALIZE 

SETTLEMENT OF ALL PROCEEDINGS, 

AND PROPOSED ORDER 

 

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the Court’s Order staying all proceedings, filed November 13, 2006, Plaintiff 

and Defendants (“Parties”) submit this Joint Status Conference Statement setting forth the 

current status of the above-captioned action. On the basis of this report, the progress being 

made toward finalizing a settlement that would resolve all claims, and the Parties joint request 

for further time to complete the settlement documents, the Parties request that this Court extend 

the stay of proceedings for another four months to and including September 1, 2007, or such 

other date as the Court deems appropriate. 

Case 2:06-cv-02295-MCE -KJM Document 12 Filed 05/15/07 Page 1 of 4
Joint Status Conference Report and - 2 -

Request for Extension of Stay 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

II. JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE REPORT 

The present action is limited to Plaintiff’s challenge of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

(“TRPA.”) disapproval of an application to modify a driveway access to a proposed residence. 

The lawsuit was filed in August 2006 in order to avoid the running of a statute of limitations. 

Nevertheless, negotiations have been ongoing since July 2006 to resolve not only this litigation 

but also all issues concerning the future development of a subdivision owned by Plaintiff and 

located in Placer County on the north shore of Lake Tahoe. The much larger global resolution of 

this case is more complex than the narrow scope of the Complaint would suggest; the 

settlement involves multiple parties, and requires the agreement of, permits from, and formal 

approval by several government entities, including the Defendant TRPA, Placer County and 

several sub-elements of the County government, and the California Tahoe Conservancy 

(“CTC”). 

The Parties have recently successfully reached a conceptual settlement agreement 

among all the interested parties that would resolve all claims and causes of action. First, the 

terms and conditions of settlement have been agreed to by and between the Plaintiff, the 

Bertagnolli Family and the CTC. Secondly, the purchase of a large portion of the subdivision by 

the CTC, being a key component of the settlement, was approved by the CTC Board at its 

March 2007 Board of Directors meeting. Further, Placer County has approved the required lot 

consolidation and the Fire Department has approved the plans for the access road. What 

remains to be completed are permits and approvals by TRPA of lot consolidations, coverage 

transfers, and roadway improvements, and limited related approvals by Placer County. Finally, 

the settlement package will have to be presented for approval to the TRPA Board. 

The Parties are continuing to work cooperatively and productively, and have begun the 

necessary processes to obtain final government permits and final agency/government approvals 

needed to reflect the conceptual settlement agreement. Allowing the Parties additional time to 

finalize and memorialize the conceptual settlement will result in the stipulated dismissal of this 

case. 

Case 2:06-cv-02295-MCE -KJM Document 12 Filed 05/15/07 Page 2 of 4
Joint Status Conference Report and - 3 -

Request for Extension of Stay 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

III. JOINT REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF STAY TO FINALIZE SETTLEMENT 

A continued stay is needed to finalize the various settlement components. The 

additional time is needed initially to finish processing required government permits and to 

finalize the drafting of the different permits. In addition, the Parties mutually agree that seeking 

the approval of the permits together with the underlying Settlement Agreement will assure the 

overall success of the settlement. Thus, although finalizing the permits up front will require 

additional time and effort, the Parties are committed to this approach to the final Settlement 

Agreement. 

Both the permits and the final Settlement Agreement must be presented to the 

Defendant Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Governing Board for approval before the Parties 

may seek dismissal of the case. The TRPA Board meets once a month, so the opportunities for 

final approval are constrained. The Parties do not anticipate seeking formal approval of the 

permits or the Settlement Agreement from the TRPA Board until the June 27, 2007 Board 

meeting. Because so many different government entities are involved, the Parties have also 

factored into the requested stay extension two additional months as a contingency for resolving 

unforeseen problems. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For all the reasons stated above and based on substantial progress to date, the 

undersigned believe in good faith that a final settlement on a global basis is likely. The Court is 

respectfully asked to grant the four month extension of the stay so that the Parties may finalize 

the Settlement Agreement documents and obtain all necessary government approvals as the 

predicate to filing a stipulated dismissal of this action. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:06-cv-02295-MCE -KJM Document 12 Filed 05/15/07 Page 3 of 4
Joint Status Conference Report and - 4 -

Request for Extension of Stay 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DATED: April , 2007 McQuaid, Bedford & Van Zandt, LLP 

By:: , 

Craig A. Pridgen, Esq. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

Ett Bertagnolli 

DATED: April: , 2007 TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY 

By: : , 

Joanne S. Marchetta 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

and Governing Board Members of 

the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 

in their Official Capacities 

ORDER 

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, the Parties’ joint request for an extension of the stay of all 

proceedings is hereby GRANTED. All proceedings in this matter are stayed through September 

1, 2007. 

DATED: May 14, 2007

__________________________________ 

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-02295-MCE -KJM Document 12 Filed 05/15/07 Page 4 of 4