Well, don't become too optimistic. From what has been posted on this forum, which is probably far from being complete, Mike Castro may prevail.
The plaintiff has the responsibility to prove his claim with a proponderence of evidence. I don't think (from what has been posted) that the plaintiff has done that. This is based upon Mike's sworn testimony that the plaintiff did not park his vehicle on his (Mike's) property. That any allege damage was done on the extensive BLM land.
The plaintiff only stated that he parked approximately "200 yards" from the gate. Plaintiff doesn't know just where Mike's property line is.
The judge will ask himself who should know whether the vehicle was parked on Mike's property? The plaintiff who is uncertain (and a bit confused on the issue) or Mike Castro who owns the property and should know exactly where his property line lies.
Based upon the sworn testimony, the judge may rule based upon the plaintiff's failure to substantiate that his vehicle was clearly on Castro's land.
Sounds like Castro might win again! (However, if Mike pissed the judge off with appearance and/or attitude, he may not have helped his cause.)