SLO County judge allows Oceano Dunes lawsuit to go to trial
One lawsuit filed following the California Coastal Commission’s March 2021 vote to ban off-roading at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area may go to trial next year after a San Luis Obispo Superior Court judge rejected an attempt by the state to invalidate the suit’s claims.
The quiet title lawsuit, filed May 11 by off-roading advocacy group Friends of Oceano Dunes, alleges that the entire Oceano Dunes park land has “implied-by-law-dedication” to be used for off-highway vehicles (OHVs), beach driving and camping, and therefore cannot be used for any other purpose.
Because the Coastal Commission’s vote to ban OHV use in most areas of the park would prevent such implied uses, the lawsuit asks the judge to nullify the vote and return all of the Oceano Dunes lands to its implied use. If granted, this would mean all of the lands within the Oceano Dunes SVRA would be open to OHV use — even land set aside for court-mandated dust mitigation efforts.
“Quiet title” lawsuits of this kind are usually brought against private landowners. They are usually used to “quiet” a dispute over who owns the land.
In this case, Friends of Oceano Dunes in its lawsuit doesn’t dispute who owns the land, just that the owners allegedly are improperly using it by banning OHVs and camping in some areas of the park.
The group says in its lawsuit that California State Parks, San Luis Obispo County and the California Department of General Services — the landowners of the park — hold the title for the land and therefore are subject to a quiet title lawsuit.
The lawsuit alleges that the Oceano Dunes lands were used for “more than five years” for off-roading, beach camping and driving with full knowledge of the owner. Therefore, those uses are implied and cannot be discontinued, according to the lawsuit.
Attorneys for the state, the Department of General Services and the Coastal Commission filed a demurrer in the case on July 15.
The demurrer essentially argues that Friends’ lawsuit fails to bring a valid legal argument to the court, and therefore the lawsuit has no basis.
In Judge Tana Coates’ analysis of Friends’ main argument in the lawsuit — that the Oceano Dunes land has a legally implied dedication for OHV use — she notes that the state contends the implied dedication argument does not apply here because such doctrine cannot be asserted against the public.
However, Friends’ lawsuit argues that the implied dedication came before the state obtained the property and the land became a state park in the early 1980s.
Therefore, Coates found that she could not determine — based on the evidence she had during the demurrer hearing — whether the alleged implied dedication can be enforced against the state for the Oceano Dunes lands.
Coates ruled to overturn the demurrer on Wednesday, meaning the case can continue as is. The state has until Jan. 25 to reply to the judge’s ruling.
The case is set for a trial beginning on March 13, 2023, according to court documents.
Friends is prepared to bring as many as 20 “duners” to testify about how they drove “sandrails and dune buggies on the dunes during the 1950s and 1960s,” a news release by the organization sent out on Jan. 5 said.
Apart from the demurrer, attorneys for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District and State Parks generally denied all of the allegations in the quiet title lawsuit in separate filings received by the court on July 14 and 16, respectively.
Coastal Commission, State Parks still face second lawsuit over Oceano Dunes decision
The quiet title lawsuit is one of two that the Coastal Commission and State Parks face over the commission’s March decision.
The second lawsuit was originally four separate lawsuits but has since been consolidated into one due to overlapping legal claims.
Friends of Oceano Dunes and EcoLogic Partners allege in the consolidated lawsuit that the Coastal Commission violated state environmental laws by ordering State Pars to prohibit OHV use at the Oceano Dunes by 2024.
Arguments against the lawsuit are due to the court by Jan. 28, and a hearing is set for March 9 in Superior Court.
This story was originally published January 7, 2022 at 3:30 PM.
