Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04149/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04149-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal Libel,Assault,Slander

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOYCE YAMAGIWA, TRUSTEE OF THE

TRUST CREATED UNDER TRUST

AGREEMENT DATED JANUARY 30, 1980

BY CHARLES J KEENAN, III AND ANNE

MARIE KENNAN, FOR THE BENEFIT OF

CHARLES J KEENAN IV, AS TO AN

UNDIVIDED 50% INTEREST, AND

TRUSTEE OF THE TRUST CREATED

UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED

JANUARY 30, 1980, BY CHARLES J

KEENAN III AND ANNE MARIE KEENAN

FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANN MARIE

KEENAN, AS TO AN UNDIVIDED 50%

INTEREST,

Plaintiff,

 V

CITY OF HALF MOON BAY, COASTSIDE

COUNTY WATER DISTRICT AND DOES 1-

50,

Defendants.

 /

No C 05-4149 VRW

ORDER

Case 3:05-cv-04149-VRW Document 216 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

On November 28, 2007, the court entered its Findings of

Fact and Conclusions of Law in the above-captioned case. Doc #211. 

On December 11, 2007, Joyce Yamagiwa (“Yamagiwa”) filed a proposed

judgment, and the court invited objections from the City of Half

Moon Bay (“City”). On December 17, 2007, the City filed an

objection to Yamagiwa’s request for pre-judgment interest. The

City does not object to Yamagiwa’s claim for post-judgment

interest. The court has considered the City’s arguments and

REJECTS them for the following reasons.

The City’s reliance on Leaf v City of San Mateo, 150 Cal

App 3d 1184, 1192 [1984], disapproved on other grounds in Trope v

Katz, 11 Cal 4th 274 [1995], to argue against an award of prejudgment interest is misplaced. Leaf offers no support for not

awarding pre-judgment interest. Leaf was an action in inverse

condemnation to recover for subsidence damage caused by a sewer

project constructed by the defendant city. Injury to the property

arose in 1976, but the trial did not occur until 1981, by which

time the fair market value of the property in its undamaged

condition had appreciated substantially. Leaf at 1190-91. The

jury was correctly instructed to fix damages at the time of trial,

but the trial court awarded pre-judgment interest from 1976. 

Hence, the award of pre-judgment interest was reversed, the court

holding that “prejudgment interest should be fixed on the net

judgment from the valuation or trial date.” Leaf at 1192. 

Leaf simply stands for the proposition that to use the

date of injury for the calculation of pre-judgment interest would

have given the plaintiff the benefit of interest on the appreciated

damages during the time that appreciation was occurring. That is

Case 3:05-cv-04149-VRW Document 216 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

not what Yamagiwa seeks here. The court’s determination of damages

reflects the appreciation in the fair market value of her property

in its undamaged condition from March 2000 to October 2006 (the

October 2006 valuation being a proxy for the trial date valuation). 

Pre-judgment interest here runs only from the trial date in June

2007 until entry of judgment. The problem in Leaf does not apply.

Interestingly, the City’s contention that the property

should be valued as of March 2000, when the City Council voted to

deny Yamagiwa’s coastal development permit, and that any award of

pre-judgment interest should be calculated from that date would not

only deprive Yamagiwa of the appreciation in the value of the

property taken, but also reveals an anomaly in the City’s factual

position. The court valued the property as of the trial date, as

permitted under California law. Pierpont Inn, Inc v State of

California, 70 Cal 2d 282, 297-298 [1969]. The latter valuation

date is appropriate because the property appreciated at a rate

greater than the pre-judgment interest rate. According to the

City’s calculations and using the City’s March 2000 damages

valuation of $12,030,000, applying the statutory interest rate

until October 1, 2006 would yield approximately $15,340,999 in

total damages. The lower of the City’s estimates of the October

2006 value of the property in its undamaged condition is

$26,620,000. Using the March 2000 valuation and applying prejudgment interest would deny Yamagiwa of over $11 million in

appreciation to which the law entitles her. Furthermore, the rate

of appreciation Yamagiwa seeks and the court awards (9.62 percent)

is less than the rate of appreciation implicit in the damage

estimates of the City’s own expert (12.49 percent).

Case 3:05-cv-04149-VRW Document 216 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

These issues aside, the court is not unmindful of the

impact of these proceedings on the City. Interest alone on a

judgment in the amount calculated by the court runs at well over

$5,000 a day. Even the lower valuation of the damage to the

property offered by the City’s expert – a valuation the court found

unwarranted – amounts to almost $27 million. It is regrettable

that the City has been unable to find solutions to the problems

created by the TAAD project. 

The clerk is directed to enter judgment forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-04149-VRW Document 216 Filed 12/19/07 Page 4 of 4