Baum v. Llanez
- William Orrick
- 3:21-cv-08485
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Baum v. Llanez, Judge Orrick denied summary judgment because ownership and possession of the property remain factually disputed.
Kevin Baum and Alejandra VanPell remained protected by the preliminary injunction, which continued to bar Paul Llanez and Jannett N. Jackson from removing them or their belongings from the property.
What happened
In Baum v. Llanez, pro se plaintiffs Kevin Baum and Alejandra VanPell sought a ruling that they had a lawful interest in an Oakland property and could not be removed by Paul Llanez and Jannett N. Jackson. The plaintiffs were living and working on the otherwise vacant property after cleaning it and moving in their belongings.
Judge Orrick denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. He found a factual dispute about whether the Peralta Community College District had possessed and controlled the property, including evidence about a fence, security patrols, removing trespassers, and collecting garbage. The defendants’ investigation into the property’s title was also still ongoing.
The court’s order in Baum v. Llanez left the preliminary injunction in effect, so the defendants remained barred from removing the plaintiffs or their belongings. Judge Orrick also overruled the plaintiffs’ objections to declarations submitted by the defendants.
The detailed version
- Baum v. Llanez · No. 3:21-cv-08485
- William Orrick
- Mar. 7, 2022
Background
Pro se plaintiffs Kevin Baum and Alejandra VanPell sought summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. They asked the court to rule that they had a lawful interest in an otherwise vacant property on 5th Avenue in Oakland, California, and therefore could not be removed by defendants Paul Llanez and Jannett N. Jackson. The opinion identifies Llanez and Jackson as the director of public safety and interim chancellor of the Peralta Community College District, respectively, although the excerpt’s formatting does not clearly associate each title with a particular defendant.
The plaintiffs said they cleaned the property, removed trash and weeds, and moved their vehicles and personal belongings there. They were living in a van on the property. On October 26, 2021, the defendants, believing that the District owned the property, told the plaintiffs that their belongings would be removed if they did not leave within one week.
The plaintiffs requested a temporary restraining order on November 1, 2021, which the court granted that day. On November 10, 2021, the court issued a preliminary injunction barring the defendants from removing the plaintiffs or their belongings from the property.
The parties’ ownership dispute
The defendants asserted that the District acquired the property through a 1967 transfer from the City of Oakland. They had not yet produced valid title, however. The defendants stated that their title investigation was continuing because the legal descriptions in relevant deeds were difficult to interpret in light of changes to street alignments and landmarks. The District was also searching its archives for records concerning the transfer.
The defendants submitted declarations from the District’s former and current interim vice chancellors for General Services. Those declarations stated that the District had installed a fence and locked gate, regularly sent security guards to patrol the property, taken steps to remove trespassers, and collected garbage left there. The defendants also submitted a 2016 contract for repair of the property’s fence.
Ruling
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine dispute about a material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that the defendants had shown at least a dispute about the District’s possession and control of the property. If the defendants could not produce valid title, ownership and the defendants’ authority to remove the plaintiffs could still depend on facts concerning possession and control.
The court also stated that the defendants’ ongoing title investigation could be dispositive of the case. It did not decide that the District owned the property or that the defendants could lawfully remove the plaintiffs.
Other rulings and case status
The court overruled the plaintiffs’ objections to the defendants’ declarations, rejecting their arguments that the declarations were hearsay and that the declarants lacked personal knowledge. The preliminary injunction remained in effect, and the court left the Case Management Conference scheduled for July 5, 2022.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.