Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
STEVEN B. WOLFSON
2 District Attorney
CIVIL DIVISION
3 State Bar No. 001565
By: ROBERT T. WARHOLA
4 Deputy District Attorney
State Bar No. 004410
5 500 South Grand Central Pkwy.
P. O. Box 552215
6 Las Vegas, Nevada 89155-2215
(702) 455-4761
7 Fax (702) 382-5178
E-Mail: Robert.Warhola@ClarkCountyDA.com
8 Attorneys for Counter-Defendant Clark County
9 DISTRICT COURT
CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA
10
SAVE RED ROCK; DOES I – X; DOE )
11 PARTNERSHIPS I – X; ROE )
CORPORATIONS I – X; ) Case No: A-16-747882
12 ) Dept No: XXX
Counter-plaintiff. )
13 )
vs. ) CLARK COUNTY’S
14 ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY
) JUDGMENT
15 CLARK COUNTY, a political subdivision )
of the State of Nevada, )
16 )
Counter- defendant, )
17 )
22 Q. So when you say "everybody," you really didn't mean only those who
live near Red Rock Canyon, right?
23
Ms. Fisher: No.
24
Q. What do you mean no?
25
Ms. Fisher: I mean everybody can be affected by it.
26
Q. So it would be more accurate if you said Save Red Rock represents the
27 interests of everybody?
10
Ms. Fisher: When BLM refuses to take defense on changing stuff that could
11 affect their land, then yes.
12
13 Exhibit 1, Fisher Depo., pp. 85:20 – 86:3.
15 Further, the BLM has authority under federal law to manage, conserve and protect the
16 RRCNCA. Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Establishment Act of 1990, 101 P.L.
17 621,104 Stat. 3342, Sec. 4(a), Nov. 16, 1990; See also, 43 U.S.C. §§ 1731-1733. SRR has no
18 such statutory authority and therefore lacks standing. Summary judgment should be granted
20
21 III. SRR’s OPEN MEETING LAW CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED.
22 A. The 60-Day Limitation Period Expired And The OML Claims Are Moot.
23 The 60-day limitation period to file an Open Meeting Law claim expired on April 24,
24 2017. NRS 241.037(3)(b)(Feb. 24, 2017 plus 60 days). SRR’s Motion to Amend to add the
25 Open Meeting Law claims was not approved by the Court until May 2, 2017, over one week
26 after the limitations period expired. The Order granting leave to amend was subsequently
27 entered May 10, 2017 and SRR’s Second and Third Amended Counterclaims were filed on
28
17 Exhibit 6, p. 9, Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 12 (emphasis added). When asked to produce all
18 documents in support of SRR’s allegation of irreparable harm, SRR responded:
19 • “Save Red Rock has no documents responsive to this request at this time.”
20 Exhibit 7, p. 4, Request For Production No. 5 (emphasis added).
21 D. SRR Has Produced No Studies To Support Their Allegations Of Harm.
22 When asked if they have any studies to support their allegations of harm, SRR admits
23 they have none:
24 Q: Has Save Red Rock ever hired like a traffic engineer to do a traffic
analysis to determine the number of vehicle trips?
25
26 Ms. Fisher: No.
27
28 * * *
27 ///
28 ///
P:\RTWMEMO3\Save Red Rock\2018 Summary Judgment\MSJ final.docx 16 of 24
1 Exhibit 1, Fisher Depo., p. 90:18 – 91:16. Clearly, the requirement that SRR establish an
2 imminent, concrete injury, is not satisfied by testimony that the potential development of the
3 Gypsum property may affect some person’s feelings at some unknown, distant point in the
4 future.
5
6 2. Summerlin West.
7 Summerlin West also illustrates the point that proximity of development does not equate
8 to future harm. Summerlin West is an existing major project development located in the City
9 of Las Vegas west of County 215 and north of Charleston Avenue:
10
11
12 Summerlin
West
13
14
15
Gypsum
16
17
18
19 Exhibit 1, Fisher Depo., exh. 21. Summerlin West has the following features:
20 • Directly adjacent to the RRCNCA;
21 • Surrounded by the RRCNCA on three sides;
22 • 6,315 existing homes;
23 • Up to 30,000 homes approved to be built;
24 • Direct access onto State Route 159;
25 • Closest access to State Route 159 is just yards away from the entrance to
the RRCNCA; and
26
27 • Dark skies technique not employed.
28 ///
P:\RTWMEMO3\Save Red Rock\2018 Summary Judgment\MSJ final.docx 17 of 24
1 Exhibit 1, Fisher Depo., pp. 97:10 – 19; 99:15 – 19; 100:11 – 13; 104:6 – 105:25; 112:5 - 15
2 and exh. 21; Exhibit 9, Declaration of Julie Cleaver, p. 1 and exh. 1.
3 SUMMERLIN WEST
4
5
6
7
8
County 215
9
10
11 Summerlin
West
12
13
14
15 RRCNCA
State Route 159
16 (Charleston)
19
20
21 Exhibit 9, Declaration of Julie Cleaver, exh. 1, map of Summerlin West.
22 SRR has produced no evidence that the thousands of persons currently residing in
23 Summerlin West have done anything to harm the RRCNCA. No evidence that Summerlin
24 West impacts the RRCNCA from a traffic standpoint. No evidence of light or noise pollution.
26 Nor has SRR ever objected or protested development in Summerlin West. Exhibit 1,
27 Fisher Depo., p. 101:10 – 12. SRR has never petitioned the City or NDOT about limiting
28 Summerlin West’s access to State Route 159 (Charleston Blvd.). Exhibit 1, Fisher Depo., pp.
21
22 /s/Christine Wirt
An Employee of the Clark County District
23 Attorney’s Office – Civil Division
24
25
26
27
28