A CALIFORNIA STATE APPEALS COURT last week denied a landowner’s request that the court reconsider its decision that the owner of the Skunk Train in Mendocino County has the power to condemn private property.
The decision is the latest salvo in a long-running dispute over the attempt of Mendocino Railway — the owner and operator of the popular Skunk Train excursion service — to condemn a 20-acre undeveloped parcel in Willits, allegedly to be used for current and future passenger and freight rail operations.
In California, a public utility is authorized to condemn private property for public purposes, providing that it pays the owner “just compensation” for the land.
The owner of the parcel, John Meyer, challenged the condemnation on grounds that Mendocino Railway is not a “public utility” for purposes of the eminent domain law and therefore had no power to pursue condemnation. Meyer also argued that even if the railway was a public utility, the proposed use of the condemned property was not for public purposes and therefore did not qualify for condemnation.
After a six-day jury trial in 2022, Meyer’s arguments prevailed in Mendocino County Superior Court.
Under California law, to be deemed a public utility, a rail operator must be open to, and actually serve, the general public, not a private group, and the property to be condemned must be for public purposes.
The railway owns a roughly 40-mile rail line that runs from Fort Bragg to Willits. The track’s primary operations and revenues (over 90%) come from running private Skunk Train excursions. In addition, the line provides passenger commuter service to a small number of individuals and families that commute to their properties on the line. The train also has some modest freight operations and hopes to have more in the future.
The line was open for the full 40-mile run until 2015 when a collapsed tunnel — yet unrepaired — severed the line into two parts. Notwithstanding the collapse, the railway continued offering the Skunk Train excursions. It also continued to offer out-and-back service on either side of the tunnel, both for passengers and freight, but there was no longer end-to-end service. As before, the passenger and freight operations were dwarfed by the excursion operations.
Meyer argued that the private excursion business was the predominant business of the railway and it overwhelmed the small freight and passenger commuter business. On that basis, he argued that the railway was just a private business and not a railroad public utility.
Meyer also contended that the land was not being acquired for a public purpose but was intended to enhance the railway’s excursion business. In that regard, Meyer pointed out that the original project description included a campground, pool and an RV park, uses that had little relevance to railroad operations, the asserted public purpose of the condemnation.
On April 19, 2023, Superior Court Judge Jeanine Nadel found that the railway’s limited commuter and freight operations were far outweighed by the railway’s private excursion operation. She also found that the railway had not met its burden of showing that the land was being acquired for public purposes. She ruled in Meyer’s favor and awarded him $265,000 on account of the legal fees he incurred in his successful battle against the condemnation.
The railway appealed and on Dec. 9, 2025, a panel of the California Court of Appeal reversed the decision of Nadel. The court found that if an operator is offering to provide the general public with a service that is in the public interest, it should be recognized as a public utility even if it also has private operations. In its view, the passenger and freight operations were offered to the general public, and its private operations, though more substantial, did not defeat its public utility classification.
The Court of Appeals also noted the testimony of the railway’s chief executive officer and president, Robert Pinoli, to the effect that the campsite and RV uses had been abandoned. According to Pinoli, the acquisition would allow the railway to “fully operate its freight rail services with storage yards, maintenance, and repair shops, transload facilities, rail car storage capacity, and a passenger depot.”
The court found that this testimony was sufficient to meet the railway’s burden of proof that the condemned property was being acquired for public purposes.
Based on the findings, the court set aside the lower decision and vacated the attorney’s fee award. The court ordered that the case go back to the trial court to determine the amount of just compensation Meyer is due for the taking of his property.
Meyer asked the court to reconsider its decision, arguing that the appeals court failed to give proper weight to Nadel’s findings even though she had heard six days of in-court testimony and, as a result, had ample opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses on the key factual questions.
Meyer argued the supposed use of the property to support passenger and freight uses “on its isolated 40-mile-long line [make] no financial or logistical sense.”
With the collapsed tunnel severing the line, Meyer’s court filing said, Mendocino Railway “is, in essence, attempting to proceed with the taking of the Meyer property to create a freight and commuter passenger line to nowhere.”
In Meyer’s view, the railway’s primary objective is to obtain the property to serve the excursion service.
The appeals court last Wednesday denied Meyer’s request for reconsideration without further elaboration.
The ruling is unlikely to end the dispute. Meyer’s lawyer intends to file a petition for review with the California Supreme Court.
Counsel for Mendocino Railway did not immediately return a request for comment on the ruling.