Museum of Handcar Technology LLC v. Transportation Agency for Monterey County

Background

The Museum operated a handcar tour business on the historic Monterey Branch Line railway. The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) declined to renew the Museum’s lease and brought an unlawful detainer case to evict the Museum. TAMC said the eviction was needed to begin the SURF! Busway and Bus Rapid Transit Project. The Museum sought a preliminary injunction, a temporary court order, arguing that TAMC was retaliating against it for exercising First Amendment rights by opposing the Project.

In April 2025, the court found that the Museum had shown a likelihood of success on its First Amendment retaliation claim, a likelihood of irreparable harm, and that the balance of hardships and public interest favored temporary protection. The court enjoined TAMC from seeking, requesting, or applying for a writ of possession. The court stated that TAMC could later seek to vacate the injunction if it showed that construction would begin imminently, the Museum had to be evicted first, and the Project was fully funded, permitted, approved, and ready for construction.

Motion to Vacate

TAMC filed the motion to vacate on May 12, 2025. After an evidentiary hearing, the court found that circumstances had changed. TAMC produced evidence that the Project was fully funded and authorized to begin construction in the City of Marina. The Project timeline required railroad track removal to begin by September 9, 2025. Testimony established that track removal was a critical path item: without it, Monterey-Salinas Transit could not move forward with the Project, and delays could affect the rest of the schedule and the Project’s public benefits.

The court found that the balance of hardships and public interest would soon favor vacating the injunction. However, it found that TAMC had not shown that the Museum needed to stop operating immediately. Tree removal was already underway, and the evidence did not show that the Museum’s operations caused the claimed delay. Seed and soil collection was also occurring on days when the Museum was not operating. Although construction in the City of Marina was described as ready to begin, the contractor still needed to submit insurance, bonds, and other requirements before construction could begin in earnest.

The Museum argued that TAMC had changed the Project timeline to facilitate ending the injunction and possibly to retaliate again. The court stated that, on the current record, it could not conclude that retaliation was a substantial or motivating factor in the timeline changes. The court found evidence supporting a plausible non-retaliatory explanation, including that available work areas were within the City of Marina and that the September track-removal date was generally consistent with earlier schedules.

Evidentiary Rulings

The court applied the less formal evidentiary standards used at the preliminary-injunction stage. It granted the Museum’s motion to strike TAMC’s 30 pages of evidentiary objections because TAMC had filed them separately from its reply brief, contrary to the court’s local rule. The court independently considered evidentiary issues relevant to the motion to vacate. It overruled one of the Museum’s objections, found two objections moot, overruled objections to specified rebuttal evidence, and sustained the Museum’s remaining objections.

Disposition

The court granted in part TAMC’s motion to vacate the preliminary injunction. It ordered that the injunction issued on April 14, 2025, would automatically vacate on August 29, 2025, at 11:59 p.m. Pacific time. The court expected the Museum to cease operations and vacate the leased premises by then so that TAMC would not need to obtain a writ of possession and evict the Museum. The court also warned that violations of court orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or the court’s local rules could result in sanctions.