Injunction Hearing Comes Thursday for 'Occupy the Farm' Defendants

[Editor's Note: See all the documents associated with the civil lawsuit as PDFs to the right. Click the following link to read more on Albany Patch about the Gill Tract occupation.]

Thursday morning, an Alameda County Superior Court judge in Hayward is set to hear arguments on whether a group of people allegedly associated with the 'Occupy the Farm' Gill Tract occupation should be prohibited from entering the property or helping others on the site perform various forbidden activities, as defined by attorneys representing the regents of the University of California. 

Earlier this month, Judge David E. Hunter issued a temporary restraining order against 13 defendants in the civil case to , or helping others with those activities. 

The hearing Thursday could replace Hunter's temporary restraining order with an injunction to prevent defendants from activities on the Gill Tract more permanently—until the conclusion of a civil trial before a judge. 

But a trial, said attorney Michael Siegel, could be years in the future, meaning Thursday's hearing will most likely be "the big battle of this case."

(Siegel's firm, Siegel & Yee, is representing defendants in the case pro bono. He said Wednesday that his father, attorney Dan Siegel, will present arguments for the defendants on Thursday.)

In court documents their firm filed May 29, the Siegels argue that university attorneys "failed to introduce specific evidence of misconduct" related to any of the named defendants.

"We feel like the legal tactic of the regents is guilt by association," said Michael Siegel. "What they're trying to do is say, 'There's this movement, Occupy the Farm, and, whatever anyone has done, we're going to hold these six to eight people accountable.' It's not legal.... They've charged the spokespeople, the political organizers, and want to hold them accountable for what hundreds or thousands or people have been involved with." 

The Siegels also assert that, following the on May 14, "the alleged trespass has ceased and the purported nuisance has been abated." As a result, wrote the Siegels, there is no longer any need for the injunction.

In their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to the injunction, the Siegels also describe their clients' conduct as "protected rights of expression, association, and petition," that are guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.

Exactly who the injunction would affect is somewhat of an open question, he added.

Thirteen people were named in the university's Order to Show Cause for the restraining order and injunction: Gopal Dayaneni, Anya Kamenskaya, Devin Murphy, Stefanie Rawlings, Eric Larsen, David Grefarth, Russell Bates, Alejandra Cano, Vaden Dabney, Erik Eisenberg, Marika Iyer, Nathan Pitts and Gabrielle Silverman.

But Siegel said it's his firm's contention that the university failed to serve all the defendants with the appropriate legal notice prior to the May 21 deadline set earlier in the month. As a result, only six of the 13—Dayaneni, Kamenskaya, Rawlings, Grefarth, Bates and Iyer—are listed as the firm's clients in the case. Two others, Larsen and Cano, are noted in the document, but not listed as defendants.

BACKGROUND ON THE CIVIL LAWSUIT

The University of California regents alleging that 15 named defendants, as well as "DOES 1 through 150," had "participated in the illegal occupation of the University’s Gill Tract property" from April 22 into May. 

Since May 9, the university has dropped two defendants from the suit and added three others. 

The university noted, in a prepared statement on May 9, that the lawsuit was one piece of its strategy to regain control of its property "so that it can be used for ."

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants and the "DOES" "conspired to cut locks, enter the property illegally and establish an illegal encampment" on the Gill tract, and that defendants continued "to trespass on the property, despite repeated warnings from the UC Police Department that their presence is illegal."

The university argues that the presence of the defendants halted research efforts and education activities, "resulting in substantial harm to researchers, students and the University." 

In addition, the university is seeking monetary damages for costs resulting from the alleged trespass, and for the rental value of the land during the occupation; the university "also seeks payment by the defendants of its attorney’s fees under a state law that allows it to recover fees in a lawsuit involving 'trespassing on lands...under cultivation.'"

Attorney Michael Siegel said Wednesday that any damages to be awarded would be determined following a civil trial before a judge.

Following the preliminary injunction hearing, he said, would come a period for "discovery," when both sides get information from each other. A trial, potentially two to three years in the future, would follow this discovery period.

Thursday's oral argument hearing on the preliminary injunction is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. in Department 520 of the Hayward Hall of Justice, 24405 Amador St., in Hayward.  

Click the "Keep me posted" button below for an update when we publish future stories on this topic. Read more on Albany Patch about the Gill Tract occupation. 

If there's something in this article you think , or if something else is amiss, call editor Emilie Raguso at 510-459-8325 or email her at albany@patch.com.