Source: https://www.coxcastle.com/practice-areas/land-use-and-natural-resources/eminent-domain
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 08:28:58+00:00

Document:
Cox, Castle & Nicholson has extensive experience in the representation of public and private clients in all types of eminent domain matters. We have significant experience in state and federal court through trial and appeal. We work with our clients to develop a strategy for each eminent domain matter to obtain the most favorable outcome in a cost effective and timely matter, seeking settlements favorable to our clients at the earliest possible time in order to minimize legal costs. Our experience in representing our clients in eminent domain actions for public projects have involved complex valuation issues including compensation for property taken, damages to the property remaining after the taking and loss of goodwill. We also assist clients in dealing with issues that arise from the California Relocation Assistance Law during the eminent domain process.
We also have experience in the prosecution and defense of inverse condemnation actions brought by private parties seeking compensation for the taking or damaging of private property by public entities both through physical invasion and as a result of regulatory actions.
Additionally, we have handled a number of eminent domain actions involving contaminated property where the contamination of the property played a significant role in the valuation of the property. In these matters, we have worked closely with experts in the process and costs associated with remediating contaminated property and appraisers who testified about the impact of contamination on the valuation of the property.
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California v. Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., County of San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. SCV35498. Represented the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California through trial and appeal to the California Supreme Court in this extremely complex eminent domain matter involving the acquisition of property for the Inland Feeder project.
People of the State of California v. June H. Schanbacher-Lindquis, San Mateo County Superior Court, Case Numbers CIV 452016 and CIV 452018. Represented the owner of property located on the east side of SR 1 in San Mateo County. The property was sought by the State for a new alignment of SR 1 through the "Devil's Slide" area. The initial offer by the State was $1,022,900. The matter ultimately settled for $3,018,000.
County of Riverside v. Morita, Riverside County Superior Court, Case No. RIC 398757. In this matter, the County of Riverside sought property for a park. The County's initial offer for the full take was $1.3 million. The matter ultimately settled shortly before trial for $3 million.
City of Lake Forest v. Buchheim Properties I, et al., Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 04CC06207. Represented the ground lessee of property sought by the City of Lake Forest for a highway improvement project. The primary issue addressed in this matter was the allocation of the just compensation between the lessor and lessee. The initial settlement offer was $30,000 and the final settlement was for $929,403.
San Gabriel Redevelopment Agency v. Liu, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 325199. Represented the owner of a shopping center sought by the Redevelopment Agency for redevelopment. The initial offer by the Agency was $3.9 million. The matter settled shortly before trial for $4.45 million.
City of Los Angeles v. Chen, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC 301998. In this matter the City of Los Angeles filed an eminent domain action to acquire property for a fire station. The City's initial offer was $3.15 million and was settled prior to trial for $4.2 million.
People of the State of California v. BBC Properties, County of San Bernardino Superior Court, Case NO. SCVSS 104541. In this matter, Caltrans initiated this eminent domain action to acquire property to widen the 210 Freeway near Rialto. The Caltrans appraiser valued the property at $72,500 and the matter settled shortly before trial for $1,620,000.
City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders. Represented the Los Angeles Coliseum Commission in this very different eminent domain action brought by the City of Oakland to force the Raiders to return to Oakland from Los Angeles. The representation included trial and three hearings before the Court of Appeal and ultimately resulted in the decision of the Court of Appeal in City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders,174 Cal .App. 3d 414 (1985), upholding the trial court's decision barring the City of Oakland from acquiring the Raiders since the action violated the commerce clause of the United States Constitution because the Raiders were a business engaged in interstate commerce.
City of Riverside v. Hunsaker, Riverside Superior Court, Case No. RIC 506079. Successfully caused the City of Riverside to abandon their eminent domain action and obtained 100% of the client's attorney's and expert fees.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.