Carnegie/Connolly Ranch access easement in court
- Thread starter Brewster
- Start date
m0t0_ryder
RYD!
Haven't revisited this thread in awhile.
Glad to see preliminary reports are positive.
Hoping for the same positive results on the 13'th.
Butch... most awesome article!
I know and feel your passion (as Budman pointed out) and am glad we have a few folks like you who carry the flag!
I also know it's too late but one part of your article could easily be taken out of context and called faulty information.
I know the intent is to convey that "Red Sticker" bikes are not allowed for 6 months of the year but your comment doesn't seem to indicate that. A simple change of the sticker order would eliminate any element of misunderstanding.
For example... simply changing sticker color order and adding a couple words removes the grayness of your original wordage that seems to imply that "all" moto's" made after 2005 are restricted to 6 months of riding.
I really try not to nit-pic, but on very important issues I think it's necessary to point out any (even) hint at information that can come back and bite ya.
Anyway, thanks again for your excellent article.
YOU ROCK!
John
Glad to see preliminary reports are positive.
Hoping for the same positive results on the 13'th.
Butch... most awesome article!
I know and feel your passion (as Budman pointed out) and am glad we have a few folks like you who carry the flag!
I also know it's too late but one part of your article could easily be taken out of context and called faulty information.
I know the intent is to convey that "Red Sticker" bikes are not allowed for 6 months of the year but your comment doesn't seem to indicate that. A simple change of the sticker order would eliminate any element of misunderstanding.
For example... simply changing sticker color order and adding a couple words removes the grayness of your original wordage that seems to imply that "all" moto's" made after 2005 are restricted to 6 months of riding.
I really try not to nit-pic, but on very important issues I think it's necessary to point out any (even) hint at information that can come back and bite ya.
Anyway, thanks again for your excellent article.
YOU ROCK!
John
I just got back from todays court hearing. The judge declared that the preliminary injunction is to be dissolved. I believe that means that the public will regain access to the closed off portion of Carnegie SVRA.
There is another court date set, Jan. 27, for the judge to rule on declarative relief sought by Connolly ranch. There seems to be some clarification needed in the judges statement about contract interpretation presented on 2-20-19. Court document # 9167401.
Ride on
Brewster
CORVA
There is another court date set, Jan. 27, for the judge to rule on declarative relief sought by Connolly ranch. There seems to be some clarification needed in the judges statement about contract interpretation presented on 2-20-19. Court document # 9167401.
Ride on
Brewster
CORVA
Thanks for being there Brewster. Just looked this AM for any news but it wasn't out yet. Read the reply from the state to Connollly from the 6th of Jan; what a bunch of whiners. Wanted the Judge to overturn the jury decision even though the cases they sited as stare decicis weren't applicable to them; glad the judge ruled against them again!
Hopefully the clarification won't change things, so far Connolly is 0 for 2....I think we will regain access but not sure if we can use the spillway, that is likely what the judge wants clarification on. How that part of the easement can and should be used will determine how quickly we can get back into that part of the park.
Was out there the last couple of weekends and even though that SRI area is technically open you can't get to it. They had to close off all the kiln canyon burn area (only access route) due to idiots riding off trail. Yet another example of how easy it is to lose the little riding area we still have.
Again, thanks for keeping is all in the loop!
Hopefully the clarification won't change things, so far Connolly is 0 for 2....I think we will regain access but not sure if we can use the spillway, that is likely what the judge wants clarification on. How that part of the easement can and should be used will determine how quickly we can get back into that part of the park.
Was out there the last couple of weekends and even though that SRI area is technically open you can't get to it. They had to close off all the kiln canyon burn area (only access route) due to idiots riding off trail. Yet another example of how easy it is to lose the little riding area we still have.
Again, thanks for keeping is all in the loop!
The Deanster
Well-known member
Sounds like a win for State Parks (defendant):
The Court states its tentative ruling as set forth on the record:
It would be beyond the Court's authority to allow the additional language re: contract interpretation to the verdict form.
Court is inclined to deny Plaintiff's request.
The Court hears oral argument by Plaintiff.
Parties submit.
The Court affirms the tentative ruling as follows:
The Court denies Plaintiff's request to allow additional language re: contract interpretation to the verdict form.
The Court will sign defendant's proposed judgment
The Court states its tentative ruling as set forth on the record:
It would be beyond the Court's authority to allow the additional language re: contract interpretation to the verdict form.
Court is inclined to deny Plaintiff's request.
The Court hears oral argument by Plaintiff.
Parties submit.
The Court affirms the tentative ruling as follows:
The Court denies Plaintiff's request to allow additional language re: contract interpretation to the verdict form.
The Court will sign defendant's proposed judgment
The Toe Cutter
Well-known member
Nice!!!
The section of the SVRA that was closed due to litigation has been reopened. There are still several trails remaining closed due to the Hollow Fire last summer.
https://ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1172
Ride on
Brewster
CORVA
https://ohv.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=1172
Ride on
Brewster
CORVA
Just when we thought this had been legally and properly settled in court, Connolly Ranch wants to challenge the court decision, claiming that the one of the jury's verdicts was made without supporting evidence.
For those of you following the court documents, read the three entries on Feb. 4th.
Ride on
Brewster
For those of you following the court documents, read the three entries on Feb. 4th.
Ride on
Brewster
The Deanster
Well-known member
These guys just never give up. I hope they have to pay State Parks lawyer's fees when they lose.
Hmm, the immediate question is whether the challenge stays the decisions (hope not, then it remain open). Second question is if they can just perpetuate this these legal stall tactics any longer after this one. It would seem that this is the last puff they can get from this particular suit, judging from their behavior they will file another on some other grounds in the next couple of years. As Conally is a lawyer I'm guessing the legal fees to keep this in the courts in some fashion are fairly low for them.
Lets just hope that this challenge goes the same way as the case decision and the contract addendum did.
Lets just hope that this challenge goes the same way as the case decision and the contract addendum did.
I think CORVA has “skin in the game” or more specifically, legal representation in the lawsuit.
It’s money. Garamendi & Connally seem to have unlimited amounts.
We do not.
Some of you guys have contributed substantially. Thank you.
Celeste and her pals seem to have big resources and will continue to pursue this until they are shut down by the highest courts.
Just my observation. Please support CORVA.
It’s money. Garamendi & Connally seem to have unlimited amounts.
We do not.
Some of you guys have contributed substantially. Thank you.
Celeste and her pals seem to have big resources and will continue to pursue this until they are shut down by the highest courts.
Just my observation. Please support CORVA.
Last edited:
When the judge considers further action, I hope she or the state AG office looks at the California Constitution:
ARTICLE VI JUDICIAL
Sec. 13.
No judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in any cause, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Ride on
Brewster
CORVA
ARTICLE VI JUDICIAL
Sec. 13.
No judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted, in any cause, on the ground of misdirection of the jury, or of the improper admission or rejection of evidence, or for any error as to any matter of pleading, or for any error as to any matter of procedure, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
Ride on
Brewster
CORVA
KrustyKruser
El Chingon
Hell yeah!
I got the Senatorial candidate for my district, Dave Cortese, to say he would defend Carnegie (and Pismo).
Celeste also has three other lawsuits (I think) protesting the Carnegie General Plan.
Still.
She doesn't quit.