Jury Rejects All Claims in Glenn County Farm Dispute
Table of Contents
Case Background
This lawsuit arose from an intense neighborhood and agricultural dispute in Glenn County, California. Plaintiffs Gerald Corriea, Jerry Corriea, and Michelle Rosas, all residents on County Road X, filed the complaint in March 2021 against their neighbors, including new property owner Eric Suhre, his relative Dan Suhre, and tenants Joshua and Jennifer Jensen.
The conflict had centered on a lease agreement. Gerald and Jerry Corriea, who ran a farming operation, had secured a lease with the former owner of the property east of them, known as the Suhre Property, before Eric Suhre had acquired it sometime after January 1, 2020. This agreement permitted the Corrieas to farm fifteen acres on the Suhre Property and to manage a two-acre pasture lot directly across the road from their own horse arena. The Plaintiffs maintained that they had fulfilled all the duties of that 2020 lease.
The situation became hostile shortly after Eric Suhre had finalized his property purchase. The Corrieas alleged that Suhre immediately attempted to terminate the lease. When the Corrieas offered to sell their farming interest, Suhre reportedly rejected the offer and instead threatened to create issues for the Plaintiffs. The complaint detailed that Suhre suggested his tenants, the Jensens, would initiate harassing behavior. Following this confrontation, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants had engaged in a calculated campaign of harassment and interference against the Corrieas and their tenant, aimed at destroying their farming business and making their residency untenable.
Cause
The Plaintiffs asserted seven causes of action, maintaining that the Defendants' collective actions had severely damaged their property rights, their business, and their peace of mind.
Contractual Breaches and Eviction
The Plaintiffs first brought three claims relating to their contractual rights. They alleged Breach of Lease, arguing Eric Suhre violated the terms of the existing agricultural lease after he took ownership of the land. Following this, they claimed Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment, asserting the Defendants' hostile actions had substantially interfered with the Corrieas' right to peacefully use their property for living and farming. This continuous, hostile environment led to a claim of Constructive Eviction, in which the Plaintiffs contended that the Defendants’ behavior had made the property so hostile that it had effectively forced them out of their farming operation.
Property and Economic Torts
The Corrieas and Rosas also pursued three tort-based claims against the Defendants. They filed a Trespass claim, alleging that the Defendants or their agents had wrongfully entered or interfered with the Corrieas' property. Next, they claimed Nuisance, asserting that the Defendants created and maintained an ongoing, harmful condition that unreasonably interfered with the Plaintiffs’ private use and enjoyment of their land. Finally, the Plaintiffs claimed Interference with Prospective Economic Relations, arguing the Defendants’ calculated actions had disrupted their ability to generate income from their farming business.
General Negligence
The final claim asserted Negligence, arguing that all Defendants failed to exercise the reasonable care required in their conduct toward the Plaintiffs, and that this carelessness had caused the Plaintiffs' injuries and damages.
Injury
The Plaintiffs had suffered harm across multiple categories. The injury resulted from the alleged hostile environment, the disruption of their agricultural operations, and the ensuing legal fight. The categories of harm included:
Financial Damages stemming from the loss of the lease and the interference with the farming business.
Costs associated with defending their property and rights in the dispute.
Emotional Distress and anxiety caused by the continuous, hostile conduct and disruption of their residential life.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs had sought compensatory damages to cover all alleged financial and personal losses resulting from the Defendants’ actions. They had requested an unlimited civil amount, meaning the amount exceeded the $25,000 threshold. Crucially, they also pursued punitive damages, asserting that the Defendants’ conduct was malicious and willful, thereby warranting additional punishment beyond simple compensation.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Gerald Corriea | Jerry Corriea | Michelle Rosas
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): John R. Garner | Peter C.L. Chen | Patricia Kramer | Chad A. Vierra | Caitlin J. Hoffman
Defendant(s): Eric Suhre | Dan Suhre | Joshua Jensen | Jennifer Jensen
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Mary K. Talmachoff | Douglas B. Jacobs | David R. Griffith | AngelaM. Hooper | Chamberlin J Steven | Andrea M Wieder
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiffs’ legal team had consistently argued that the Defendants worked together in a clear pattern of harassment and conspiracy. They maintained that Eric Suhre's initial threat, followed by the tenants' behavior, proved a calculated effort intended to break the lease and interfere with the Corrieas’ quiet enjoyment. Counsel had asserted that this deliberate scheme constituted the various breaches and torts detailed in the complaint.
Defense
Defendant Eric Suhre’s defense team filed an Amended Answer in May 2021, where they repeatedly denied every single allegation of the complaint. The defense flatly denied all claims of negligence, breach of contract, or involvement in any harassment campaign. Suhre’s attorneys had insisted their client committed no act that had caused the Plaintiffs any injury, maintaining throughout the proceedings that the Plaintiffs’ claims were entirely without merit.
Jury Verdict
The civil trial, which had commenced in November 2024, concluded with the jury returning a decisive verdict. The Court filed the Judgment on Special Verdict on December 20, 2024.
The jury’s deliberations resulted in findings that completely favored the Defendants. The verdict affirmed that the Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden of proof on every single claim for relief they had brought before the Court.
The final judgment explicitly stated that the Plaintiffs, Gerald Corriea, Jerry Corriea, and Michelle Rosas, would take nothing by way of their complaint against the named Defendants Eric Suhre, Dan Suhre, and Joshua Jensen. The Court awarded Defendant Eric Suhre the right to recover his costs of suit, confirming his status as the prevailing party in the litigation. This verdict concluded the lengthy and complex legal battle with a total victory for the defense on all counts.