SAN ANDREAS SANITARY DISTRICT, et al v LOCKWOOD, et al

The District holds a 20-foot-wide permanent public utility easement over approximately 1.02 acres of the Properties (“Outfall Easement.”) (Complaint ¶ 20, Ex. 4.) Nielsen conveyed the Outfall Easement to the District in April of 2024. (Ibid.) The Outfall Easement is a non-exclusive permanent public utility easement for the purposes of “placing, maintaining and operating an underground sewer main with surface manholes[]...” (Id. ¶ 21.)

According to the Defendants, a portion of the Outfall Easement runs through a fenced pasture on the Ranch (Declaration of Donald Neu (“Neu Decl.”) ¶10.) Defendants contend this is their “largest permanently fenced pasture.” (Ibid.) Defendants assert that there is an existing heavy duty livestock gate at the southeastern edge of the pasture which provides the sole ingress/egress for the pasture. (Ibid.) The Outfall Easement runs through this gate. (Ibid.) There is no gate at the northwestern edge of the pasture. (Ibid.)

District alleges that for approximately two years on and off, Lockwood and Neu (and Does 1-10) have breached the Deed of Easement conveying the Check Dam Easements by allowing obstructions that prevent entry to the Check Dam Easement’s roadway. Specifically, defendants allegedly allow livestock to roam their property which prevents the District’s ability to enter the roadway to access its easements. (Complaint ¶ 26.) Lockwood and Neu have also allegedly placed either a barbed wire or an electric fence on the Properties which prevents the District from utilizing the Outfall Easement. (Id. ¶ 30.)

Defendants contend that the pasture has been fenced since they purchased the Properties and they believe it has been fenced since at least 1970 (ie., before the easements). (Neu Decl. ¶ 10.) Thus, Defendants argue that the fence was a known existing obstacle prior to the easements and Plaintiff never objected to its existence when obtaining the easements.

According to Defendants, prior to their acquisition of the Ranch, and for several years after, District used an unrecorded “alternative access point to reach the Outfall Easement” with permission from the owners. (Neu Decl. ¶ 6; Complaint ¶ 30.) Defendants refer to this as the “Extra Easement Areas of Travel.” (Neu Decl. ¶6.) However, according to Defendants, the Plaintiff’s use of this alternative access caused damage to the properties and accordingly Defendants insisted that Plaintiffs use the actual access point in the Outfall Easement. (Id. ¶¶ 7, 8.)

On October 17, 2025, this Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why a Preliminary Injunction Should not Issue Enjoining Defendants from obstructing the San Andreas Sanitary District’s public utility easement (“Outfall Easement”). The TRO enjoined Defendants from obstructing the Outfall Easement by the electric fence, and from interfering with the District’s operation and maintenance of its underground sewer pipeline located at the North Fork Calaveras River.

Subsequent to the TRO, the District confirmed that the electric fence has been removed from the Outfall Easement (Declaration of Hugh Logan in Support of OSC (“Logan Decl.”), ¶ 4.)

District filed a supplemental brief in support of the OSC. Defendants oppose imposition of the injunction.

II. Legal Standard and Discussion

When determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the court considers two interrelated questions: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief. (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554; see also Robbins v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 206; Code Civ. Proc., § 526.)

A. Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits

District’s complaint brings causes of action for breach of contract, private nuisance, and declaratory relief.

In order to prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, the District must demonstrate: 1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff. (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

Here, District has alleged and produced evidence of valid easements, giving the District the right to access and maintain the sewer lines and flow meters. Defendants do not dispute that the easements are valid – rather, they argue that the fence is not new and the Outfall Easement only prohibits the construction or placement of a permanent improvement. It does not, according to Defendants, require removal of a pre-existing permanent improvement and they contend the barbed fence was just that.

District has also alleged and produced evidence that it has complied with the various easements, but that Defendants have breached the easements by blocking access to the Properties. The Court agrees with this assessment, even if the fence pre-dated the Outfall Easement (which is not definitively established). All parties agree that the District has a valid easement to access and maintain the sewer lines and flow meters. There is also no dispute that in order to do so, the District has to actually access the areas covered by the easements, including with equipment and machinery. Prior to 2024, the

District was not blocked by the fences on the Outfall Easement because it was using the “alternative access” to perform its work. Once Defendants refused to allow the District to use the alternative route, the only method for reaching the sewer lines was through the Outfall Easement. The fence is blocking access which is resulting in the District not being able to effectually use their easements.

Finally, Defendants have alleged that they have been damaged because they cannot access their equipment to perform maintenance or other operations unless its employees use an industrial size ladder to climb over the barbed wire fence. (Logan Decl. ¶ 8.) Requiring the Plaintiff’s employees to scale the ladder violates the District’s safety and injury prevention policies. (Id. ¶¶ 9-11.) Plaintiff asserts that “[i]f the District is required to implement the current unsafe access procedure (i.e., access via ladder over the barbed wire fence) during the pendency of this litigation, there is a significant risk that an employee may be injured and the District may incur liability under workers’ compensation laws if an employee is injured.” (Id. ¶ 12.)

Accordingly, District is likely to prevail on its cause of action for breach of contract.

Likewise, the District is likely to prevail on its cause of action for private nuisance. “When a person interferes with the use of an easement he deprives the easement's owner of a valuable property right and the owner is entitled to compensatory damages. The interference is a private nuisance and the party whose rights have been impeded can recover damages as measured in the case of a private nuisance.” (Moylan v. Dykes (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 561, 574.)

Finally, Plaintiff is likely to prevail on its request for declaratory relief because there is an actual controversy over the rights conveyed to the District through the easements.

B. Balance of Harm to the Parties

The Court must next look at the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the granting or denial of interim injunctive relief. (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.) “[T]he more likely it is that [applicant] will ultimately prevail, the less severe must be the harm that they allege will occur if the injunction does not issue.” (King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal. 3rd 1217, 1227.) The general purpose of a preliminary injunction is often to preserve the status quo. (Harbor Chevrolet Corp. v. Machinists Local Union 1484 (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 380, 384.)

District’s motion states that it is being harmed through Defendants’ conduct because, while the electric fence was removed, there remains a barbed wire fence which poses a safety threat to its workers and impedes access to the Outfall Easement. (The District states that it is now forced to either subject its employees to unsafe working conditions (and potentially opening themselves up to liability) or risk noncompliance with requirements of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. (Id. ¶ 15.)

In opposition, Defendants raise serious concerns about their ability to run their business if they are required to remove the fence around their largest grazing area. According to Defendants, they typically keep between 100-250 goats on the ranch and their main business is leasing the goats for long-term and short-term grazing on properties in Calaveras, Amador, and Tuolumne Counties. (Neu Decl. ¶ 9.) Defendants aver that goats are “voracious eaters and between off-site stints must be regularly moved around the ranch for grazing to keep fed.” (Ibid.)

They assert that while “removal of the fence across the easement is a simple task, doing so will render the pasture unusable for keeping goats.” (Id. ¶ 14.) Defendants also assert that they are willing to install a gate for access, but that it is cost-prohibitive if they are required to pay for the entire gate (estimated at $5000 with labor) themselves. (Ibid.)

The Court is cognizant of the impacts on Defendants’ business if the fence is removed. However, while this is a relatively close call, the public’s interest in safe and working sewers and waterways, and the District’s need to maintain safe working conditions, outweigh the Defendants’ private financial interests.

Accordingly, the District’s has shown cause as to why the preliminary injunction should be GRANTED.

III.

Conclusion

The preliminary injunction is granted. Defendants are ordered to remove the barbed wire fence or, alternatively, are required to provide a safe means of access through the fence that does not require the use of a ladder. Defendants are further enjoined from taking any steps that would unreasonably interfere with the District’s ability to perform all operations and maintenance as allowed and anticipated via the easements currently in place.

Plaintiff is ordered to pay a bond of $5,000.00. Both parties are required to participate in a mandatory settlement conference set for October 19, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 2, at which time the Court anticipates a discussion of the cost of a gate or other means of safe access over the Outfall Easement. MSC Statements must be filed and served by 3:00 p.m. on October 9, 2026. The clerk shall provide notice of this ruling to the parties forthwith. Plaintiff to submit a formal Order complying with Rule 3.1312 in conformity with this Ruling.