Redlands can resume renting and modifying hangars built by Coyote Aviation, San Bernardino Superior Judge Thomas Garza ruled Aug. 2.
Gil Brown, owner of Coyote Aviation, filed suit June 6 to assert his ownership of the 15 hangars at the Redlands Municipal Airport. Brown built the hangars after securing a 20-year lease from Redlands in 2000. The hangar complex is valued at $3 million, according to Brown’s complaint. He was evicted following two lawsuits over the lease’s disputed end date. Brown believed he had filed to renew the lease in time, based on an email from a city representative that affirmed a later end date than the one stated in the lease. San Bernardino Superior Judge Winston Keh ruled that the city representative cannot alter the lease, and that Brown had not renewed it in time. San Bernardino Superior Judge Jay Robinson presided over the eviction case, which Brown lost.
In response to Brown’s June 6 case, Garza placed a temporary restraining order against the rental of the hangars on June 26. That order prevented Redlands from modifying the hangars, transporting, selling, leasing or transferring the hangars, or “profiting, exploiting, creating revenue, or otherwise creating financial gain” from the hangars.
After review, Garza decided not to extend that order as a preliminary injunction.
Such an order will not protect Brown’s interests, or preserve the hangars’ current state, he said. Instead, it would place a financial burden on the city, which needs to maintain the grounds, monitor the hangar complex and pay utilities if the hangar complex’s current state is to be maintained.
He also said that he was unsure of Brown’s possibility of success. Preliminary injunctions require the plaintiff to have a reasonable likelihood of success.
Brown’s June 6 complaint brings claims for violation of property rights, breach of contract, contractual obligation, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
Garza said that Brown was not likely to win on the breach of contract charge due to the prior court rulings, and that the city’s modifications might not be considered property damage. The city has changed the locks and replaced soap dispensers. An IIED claim requires the defendant to have conducted themselves outrageously, which Garza called a high bar. He was not sure if Redlands’ conduct would reach that level.
Nataly Rahmo and Rod Pacheco of Pacheco & Neach argued for Brown.
Rahmo said that the city was not given ownership of the hangar complex in the lease, and that prior court rulings did establish the city to be the owners. The prior cases were always about the rental of land, Rahmo said.
“The city wanted the hangar complex, they wanted to profit from it,” she said.
Pacheco said that Brown attempted to remove the hangars from the property, but that the city denied his demolition permit. He also said that Brown was lulled into a false sense of security by the city.
“There is no question that the property was purchased by, and built with, the blood, sweat and tears of my client,” Pacheco said.
Dustin Nirschl and Henry Adriano of Best Best & Krieger argued for the city.
Nirschl said San Bernardino Superior Judge Jay Robinson awarded Redlands possession of the hangars as long as they sit upon the city’s land.
He argued, as Garza agreed, that the city needed rent money to continue maintaining the hangars. He argued that California law would not award Brown with the disassembled hangars, even if he won the case.
“They’re entitled at most to the value of the hangars (through monetary compensation), not the hangars themselves,” Nirschl said.
During the hearing, Garza said it was an unfortunate case, but that he must apply California’s law and align himself with prior court rulings. Public opinion might be best expressed through elected office, he said.
“Sometimes when it comes to laws, and this applies to every municipality, not just Redlands, if a citizen sees a law they think is wrong, it’s up to the citizens to run for city council,” Garza said.
Pacheco and Coyote Aviation’s 35 supporters discussed the Redlands City Council following the hearing.
“We need to vote them out. I would remove every last one of them,” Pacheco said, as some supporters nodded their heads and agreed.
“This is a criminal gang. They all should be voted out of office. They stole property,” Pacheco said privately.
As the hearing concluded, Nirschl spoke against the public opinion of the city’s actions while addressing Garza.
“There’s a repeated implication that the city has not engaged in good faith negotiations. We have,” Nirschl said. He argued that the public does not know about the closed-door sessions and negotiations.
Garza set the case’s trial for July 21, 2025, with the agreement of Pacheco but against Nirschl’s wishes. That was the earliest available date with the 2,500 cases he is overseeing.
The case will begin discovery. Pacheco asked for a settlement conference, which Garza was unsure he could set due to his caseload. The conference could help resolve the case by settlement.
Case number CIVSB2418252.
Read Brown’s complaint here.
Read the city’s argument against the temporary restraining order here.
Read our previous coverage:
Court dismisses Coyote Aviation’s suit against Redlands
Redlands’ Coyote Aviation eviction halted after appeal
NOTE: Follow Our Courts Executive Editor Toni Momberger was serving as a member of the Redlands City Council in 2020. Because of the conflict, she was not involved in the oversight or editing of this coverage. Stephanie Hastings Miranda, editor of Community Forward Redlands, acted as editor in her stead.
