Reziapkine

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency v. Reziapkine

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMay 7, 20252:21-cv-02235California3,232 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING No. 2:21-cv-02235-DAD-JDP

AGENCY,

11 Plaintiff, ORDER FINDING DEFENDANT IN CIVIL v. CONTEMPT OF ORDER AND JUDGMENT FILED JULY 21, 2023

DANIL REZIAPKINE,

(Doc. No. 38) Defendant.

16 This matter is before the court on the March 18, 2025 order to show cause why defendant should not be held in civil contempt. (Doc. No. 38.) On May 5, 2025, that order came before the court for hearing. Attorney Marsha Burch appeared on behalf of plaintiff Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Defendant Danil Reziapkine did not appear at the hearing despite having been specifically ordered to do so. (Doc. No. 38.) Moreover, defendant Reziapkine’s counsel of record, attorney Joe M. Laub, also failed to appear at the hearing despite having been ordered to do so. (Doc. No. 37.) For the reasons that follow, the court finds defendant in civil contempt for 24 At the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.