Path/Easement Lawsuit

Update: Contra Costa County Superior Court (Case MSC17-02529) Complaint Type: Cross Complaint

We Need Your Help to Keep the Public Path/Easement Open!

In anticipation of future mediation/negotiations and a possible court trial, please send an email/letter describing your use of the Public Path/Easement connecting Alameda Diablo and Mt. Diablo Scenic Blvd. Send the email to Ray Brandt, President Diablo Community Service District Board  rbrant@diablocsd.org and CC bikedanville@yahoo.com 

Please include the following:

  • We would like the DCSD to take a position in support of the legality of the Path/Easement based on its public use.
  • The date you first started using the Path/Easement?
  • How many years have you used the Path/Easement?
  • How many times per week, month, year(s) have you used the Path/Easement?
  • Why you want the Path/Easement to be Kept Open.
  • Are you willing to testify in court (Martinez) about your use of the Path/Easement?
  • Your Contact Information

On Jan 28, 2020 in Court the Judge ordered the case to mediation. This is a process where parties agree to an attorney from the Court’s list to try to mediate/settle this case. We are waiting to get the list of attorneys, then agree to one, and set a date for the mediation.

If we cannot reach a settlement, we appear in court on June 30, 2020 at which time the Court will probably set it for trial.

The issues are: (1) Is the current pathway a legal easement. The property owners do not object to the pathway being used by the public to go between Alameda Diablo and Mt. Diablo Scenic Blvd. The District does not object to it being an easement, but they claim they have no authority to agree that it is a vested easement since the State Park has not accepted it. If we can prove the public has been using it for the purpose it was dedicated, we believe the Court will declare it an easement for the public, even though the State has not accepted it.


(2) Once it is declared a public easement, does the District have any authority to limit its use, or declare it to be in violation of District ordinances.
 Our belief is that the District will not claim any right to limit the use of the easement.

If at mediation we can get the parties (property owners and District) to agree that the public has been using the pathway as intended by the easement dedication, and the District agrees it has no authority over it, then we can have the Judge enter a judgment based on those stipulated facts.

If we cannot get an agreement to those facts, it will be set for a trial before the judge, and he can decide if the easement is valid, and if the District has any authority over it.