Eisenstecken

Eisenstecken v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 30, 20222:20-cv-02349California4,742 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MONICA EISENSTECKEN, et al., No. 2:20-cv-02349-TLN-CKD Plaintiffs, v. ORDER TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This action is before the Court on Plaintiffs Monica Eisenstecken (“Eisenstecken”); Tahoe Stewards, LLC; Tahoe for Safer Tech; and Environmental Health Trust’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint. (ECF No. 29.) Defendants Sacramento-Valley Limited Partnership, d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”); Guilliam Nel; Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (“TRPA”); Sue Novasel; Marsha Berkbigler; and Joanne Marchetta (collectively, “Defendants”) opposed Plaintiffs’ motion. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiffs filed a reply. (ECF No. 39.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (ECF No. 29.) Also pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss, (ECF Nos. 12, 16), which the Court DENIES as moot. /// 28 I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL…

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.