The Che Cafe’s unlawful detainer trial concluded Tuesday with a San Diego County Superior Court judge ruling in the Board of Regents’ favor. The collective will have five days to vacate the space after the university delivers a written notice of the verdict.

During the bench trial proceedings, Judge Katherine A. Bacal determined that the university proved its ownership of the building and provided the collective with adequate notice of  eviction. The judge further found that the Che had not sought a dispute resolution as specified in the Master Space Agreement and thus the court proceedings were valid.

The Regents claimed that it was the Che Cafe’s responsibility to extend its tenancy and seek certification from the Graduate Student Association, but had failed to do either in the last several years. However, lawyers for the Regents also argued that the university, as the owner of the property, legally had a right to terminate the Che’s month-to-month lease without providing a reason.

The collective’s defense centered on proving the university had not followed the appropriate procedures set forth by the Master Space Agreement when it evicted the Che.

The Che Cafe’s attorney, Bryan Pease, said that the small percentage of the GSA members who voted to decertify the collective earlier this year did not sufficiently speak for the students on campus.

“If the judge in this trial determines that the GSA vote was necessary for the eviction to proceed, then we should […] take everything on submission to have a full hearing on our challenge to the GSA vote not being supported by substantial evidence and done in a manner that’s in accordance to the law,” Pease said at the beginning of the trial last week.

Bacal found that the decertification question was ultimately irrelevant to the ruling.

The Che Cafe had planned to be back in court on Oct. 31 to challenge the GSA’s decertification. But given Bacal’s ruling, the proceeding may be moot.

The collective is planning to host a Save the Che Rally on Oct. 28 to demonstrate against the university’s actions.