Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/eminent-domain-352
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 23:02:10
Document Index: 53985961

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1255', '§1240', '§ 1255', '§ 1240', '§ 25350', '§ 1245', 'art 3', '§ 998', '§ 998', '§ 664', '§ 1230']

Public Entity Claim Eminent Domain
How Does a Public Entity Claim Eminent Domain?
A motion for a prejudgment order of possession is authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410, which provides the statutory scheme for possession of property being sought in a condemnation action, prior to final judgment. This type of motion is often referred to as a “quick take” or a request for an Order for Immediate Possession (“OIP”).
Quick Take Defined
In an eminent domain proceeding, the public agency may deposit the probable amount of compensation based on an appraisal. Code Civ. Proc. 1255.010. The public agency may thereafter take immediate possession of the property. Code Civ. Proc. 1255.410. This is known as a "quick-take" eminent domain action. (Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist. v. Super. Ct. (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 648, 653.) “If any portion of the money deposited pursuant to this chapter is withdrawn, the receipt of any such money shall constitute a waiver by operation of law of all claims and defenses in favor of the persons receiving such payment except a claim for greater compensation.” Code Civ. Proc. 1255.260.
“The property owner can immediately withdraw the funds, but by doing so waives all rights to dispute the taking other than the right to challenge the amount of just compensation.” (Mt. San Jacinto Community College Dist. v. Superior Court, supra.) "...[S]ection 1255.260 operates to relinquish claims and defenses otherwise available to contest allegations in a condemner's complaint.” (Id.) “It is a statutory waiver provision which serves to reduce the right-to-condemn issues to be litigated between the parties, a substantial benefit to the condemner.” (Clayton v. Super. Ct. (1998) 67 Cal. App. 4th 28, 33.) “There is no definition of what constitutes a ‘claim’ for purposes of section 1255.260.” (Id.) “The few cases examining section 1255.260 analyze waiver in the context of substantive issues.” (Id.) “Thus, a condemnee's withdrawal of deposited funds waives any challenge to the right to take (San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. 3250 Corp. (1988) 205 Cal. App. 3d 1075, 1081-1082), and any claim as to lack of a public purpose (City of Glendale v. Superior Court (1993) 18 Cal. App. 4th 1768, 1774).” (Id.)
“In Clayton, the Court determined that the statutory right to transfer a matter to a neutral venue is not a ‘claim’ for purposes of section 1255.260.” (Id.) “In Redevelopment Agency of City of San Diego v. Mesdaq (2007) 154 Cal. App. 4th 1111, 1118, the Court found that, by withdrawing the deposit, the property owner waived his argument that the acquiring entity's action in taking his property constituted a ‘gross abuse’ of the entity's discretion and was not in the public interest.” (Id.)
A plaintiff may move the court for an order for possession demonstrating that the plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain and has deposited an amount satisfying the requirements of Civ. Code, Sec. 1255.010. Civ. Code, Sec. 1255.410(a). “The motion shall describe the property of which the plaintiff is seeking to take possession, which description may be by reference to the complaint, and shall state the date after which the plaintiff is seeking to take possession of the property.” Id. Plaintiff states it plans to take possession of the property 30 days after service of the order for prejudgment possession.
If the motion is not opposed within 30 days of service, the court shall make an order for possession if it finds the plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain and has made the required deposit. Civ. Code, Sec. 1255.410(d)(1).
A quick take is permitted where a plaintiff:
demonstrates that it is entitled to take the property by eminent domain and
has deposited an amount equal to the probable amount of compensation to be awarded to defendant.
Civ. Code, Sec. 1240.030
The plaintiff demonstrates entitlement to take the property via eminent domain by showing:
the public interest and necessity require the project;
the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; and
the property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project.
(Civ. Code, Sec. 1240.030.)
Defendant's Opposition to Taking
Code of Civil Procedure, section 1255.410, subdivision (c) provides:
Not later than 30 days after service of the plaintiff’s motion seeking to take possession of the property, any defendant or occupant of the property may oppose the motion in writing by serving the plaintiff and filing with the court the opposition. If the written opposition asserts a hardship, it shall be supported by a declaration signed under penalty of perjury stating facts supporting the hardship. The plaintiff shall serve and file any reply to the opposition not less than 15 days before the hearing.
(Civ. Code, Sec. 1255.410(c).)
If the possession motion is opposed, the court may make an order for possession if it finds:
The plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain;
The plaintiff has deposited pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1255.010) an amount that satisfies the requirements of that article;
There is an overriding need for the plaintiff to possess the property prior to the issuance of final judgment in the case, and the plaintiff will suffer a substantial hardship if the application for possession is denied or limited; and
The hardship that the plaintiff will suffer if possession if denied or limited outweighs any hardship on the defendant or occupant that would be caused by the granting of the order of possession.
(Civ. Code, Sec. 1255.410.)
Delayed Condemnation Award and Interest
“California's Eminent Domain Law provides for interest on a delayed condemnation award but limits interest to the legal rate.” (Redevelopment Agency v. Erganian (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 166, 171 citing Civ. Code, Sec. 1268.310.) “It now seems clear, however, that a statutory interest ceiling cannot prevail where it falls short of constitutional ‘just compensation’ under the standard of Seaboard and Phelps.” (Id.) “When the delay occurs during times of inflationary market interest rates which substantially exceed the statutory rate, application of the lower statutory limit denies the condemnee ‘the full equivalent of the [property's] value... at the time of the taking paid contemporaneously with the taking.’” (Id. citing Phelps v. United States (1927) 274 U.S. 341, at 344; see also, Redevelopment Agency v. Gilmore (1985) 38 Cal.3d 790 at 797.)
Useful Rulings on Eminent Domain
The State of California v. Karen Boswell
Motion: Plaintiff’s Motion for Possession Tentative Ruling: To Grant subject to the conditions outlined in Plaintiff’s Reply filed: 9/27/16 and in the Declaration of Jorge Granados filed: 9/27/16, effective November 11, 2016 or 30 days after service of the order (per Code Civ. Proc., § 1255.450 (b)), whichever is later. Explanation: Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410 A motion for a prejudgme...
..entitled to take the property by eminent domain and (2) has deposited an amount equal to the probable amount of compensation to be awarded to defendant. (1) Code of Civil Procedure §1240.030 The plaintiff demonstrates entitlement to take the property via eminent domain by showing: (1) the public interest and necessity require the project; (2) the project is planned or located in the manner that wi...
ANTELOPE VALLEY-EAST KERN WATER AGENCY VS ALICE LE ET AL
Antelope Valley East Kern Water Agency v. Alice Le, et al.; and related cases, BC707421 (lead case), BC707326, BC707327, BC707422, BC707423, BC707426, BC707427, BC707428, BC707431, BC707442, BC707443, BC707444, BC707445, BC707446, BC707447, BC707450, BC707451, BC707452, BC707516, BC707517, BC707518, BC707581, BC707582, BC707583, BC707585, BC707586, BC707587, BC707589, BC707641, BC707642, BC707643,...
..BC707518, BC707582, BC707585, BC707586, BC707587, BC707589, BC707757, and BC707828. The motions are GRANTED. Oppositions were filed in case numbers BC707426 and BC707427 pursuant to stipulation. An untimely opposition was submitted in case number BC707757. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1255.410, subd. (c).) No oppositions were filed in the other cases. Motions have not been filed in case numbers BC7074...
PEOPLE v. MHC PONDEROSA LIMITED PARTNERS
(1) Defendant MHS Ponderosa Limited Partners’ Motion for Leave to File 1st Amended Answer and Cross-Complaint. (2) Defendant MHS Ponderosa Limited Partners’ Motion for Order Granting Trial Preference and Setting Case for Trial. Defendant MHS Ponderosa Limited Partners’ Motion for Leave to File 1st Amended Answer and Cross-Complaint. On November 8, 2018 the People of the State of California filed a...
..adequately consider and mitigate effects of the public project on defendant’s property with respect to ingress and egress of vehicles onto the widened public highway. On February 8, 2019 defendant MHS Ponderosa Limited Partners filed a motion for leave to file an amended answer and a cross-complaint. Defendant MHS Ponderosa Limited Partners argues: after conducting discovery, visiting the propert...
City of Goleta vs Blue Ox Properties LLC et al
Nature of Proceedings: Motion for Order for Prejudgment Possession Santa Barbara County Superior Court Department 5 Judge Colleen K. Sterne Tentative Ruling October 17, 2011 Case: City of Goleta v. Blue Ox Properties, LLC, et al., Case No. 1381841 Motion: Motion for Order for Prejudgment Possession Tentative Ruling: The court denies plaintiff City of Goleta’s motion for order f...
..ment necessary to the San Jose Creek Capacity Improvement Project. Defendants are Blue Ox Properties, LLC, and McPage Enterprises, which own property on South Kellogg Avenue in Goleta. Blue Ox answered the complaint on July 26, 2011. On September 22, 2011, Coastal Copy, LP, answered the complaint, indicating it is a tenant of both the Blue Ox and McPage properties. Motion: The San Jose Creek...
Anna Avenue Associates LLC vs. Sandag
In response to the Motion (ROA # 143) of Defendant SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS ("Defendant" or "SANDAG") for a legal ruling, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 1255.260 and 1260.040, regarding a legal issue affecting compensation, the Court finds that causes of action 1 and 4 are not subject to dismissal. Defendant's Request (ROA # 158) for judicial notice is GRANTED IN PART an...
..of John Haggerty which is SUSTAINED based on the absence of a signature. Procedural Propriety of This Motion "If there is a dispute between plaintiff and defendant over an evidentiary or other legal issue affecting the determination of compensation, either party may move the court for a ruling on the issue." Code Civ. Proc. 1260.040(a). In Dina v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (2007)...
MOTION FOR ORDER FOR PREJUDGMENT POSSESSION TENTATIVE RULING: The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party/counsel is directed to contact the opposing party forthwith and advise of Local Rule 2.9 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. Notwithstanding the procedures set forth in Local Rule 2.9, the moving party/...
..of the liquid natural gas (LNG) injunction site across the real property designated as Assessor Parcel Number 020-180-031. (Guillen Decl., ¶ 5.) Defendant Kitchen Table, LLC (KTL) opposes. Section 1255.410 provides, if a defendant opposes the motion, the Court may make an order for possession of the property upon consideration of the relevant facts and any opposition, and upon completion of a hea...
Recent Rulings on Eminent Domain
Civil Case Management Conference (17)
Motion Hearing (Civil) (65)
Daniel S. Murphy (4)
David Sotelo (2)
Donald Black (6)
Donna Geck (17)
Dylan Sullivan (9)
Gail Ruderman Feuer (4)
Glenda Sanders (10)
Gregory Lewis (7)
Jill Fannin (7)
John P. Farrell (1)
John S. Meyer (7)
Katherine Bacal (15)
Kent Kellegrew (2)
Kim Dunning (3)
Laurie M. Earl (22)
Marc Marmaro (4)
Mark Snauffer (6)
Michael J. Raphael (9)
Michael P. Linfield (9)
Rafael A. Ongkeko (7)
Robert C. Hight (13)
Rocky Baio (6)
Steve K. Austin (7)
Teresa A. Beaudet (10)
Thierry Patrick Colaw (3)
Timothy Taylor (25)
Walter Schwarm (7)
William D Claster (13)
Contra Costa County, CA (33)
El Dorado County, CA (16)
Fresno County, CA (28)
Los Angeles County, CA (133)
Sacramento County, CA (74)
San Diego County, CA (104)
Santa Barbara County, CA (61)
Tulare County, CA (3)
Ventura County, CA (24)
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. LAWRENCE P. GRASSINI, ET AL.
Plaintiff County has presented evidence of its immediate and permanent need for the Easement and its legal right to acquire the Easement through eminent domain. (Bensel decl., ¶¶2-17; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1240.110, 1240.120; Gov. Code, § 25350.5.) County has shown, and the court finds, that County is entitled to take the property, i.e., the Easement, by eminent domain. County has presented evidence of its deposit of $7,600.00. (Murphy decl., ¶ 2.)
A party may seek judicial review of a resolution of necessity before commencement of the eminent domain action by petition for writ of mandate; and after commencement of the eminent domain action by objection to the right to take. CCP § 1245.255(a). In Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority v.
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ALAMEDA CORRIDOR-EAST CONSTRUCTION PROJECT VS PEK LENG CHOO, ET AL.
.: 20STCV08695 Hearing Date: July 10, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: mOTION FOR ORDER FOR PREJUDGMENT POSSESSION Background On March 3, 2020, plaintiff San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments in furtherance of the Alameda Corridor-East Construction Project (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action in eminent domain against the record owners of the property and occupants of the Subject Property, three parcels.
PETERS VS CITY OF BEAUMONT CALIFORNIA
As Plaintiff has stated inconsistent allegations, the demurrer is sustained with 20 days leave to amend. 9th Cause of Action: As Kapanicas properly points out, an inverse condemnation claim can only be against by one who possesses the power of eminent domain, which is not individuals. (Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Services (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 521, 529-530.) Sustained without leave to amend. 14th Cause of Action: Deceit and False Promise are fraud claims.
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT V. REGINALD E. DREW, JR., ET AL.
“If the motion is opposed by a defendant or occupant within 30 days of service, the court may make an order for possession of the property upon consideration of the relevant facts and any opposition, and upon completion of a hearing on the motion, if the court finds each of the following: “(A) The plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain.
For purposes of SANDAG's eminent domain complaint, the scope of the subject project is set forth within SANDAG Resolution of Necessity No. 2016-11, adopted January 22, 2016. _____ 4.
CITY OF BELLFLOWER VS DAVID D. NGUYEN, ET AL.
., DBA BELLFLOWER PARK MEDICAL GROUP TO COMPLAINT IN EMINENT DOMAIN Background On December 13, 2019, plaintiff City of Bellflower (“Plaintiff”) initiated the instant action under eminent domain to acquire real property located within the City of Bellflower for use to expand public parking. On February 6, 2020, defendants David D. and Marie D.
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ALAMEDA CORRIDOR-EAST CONSTRUCTION PROJECT VS ST. MARK'S CHINESE LUTHERAN CHURCH, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.
Mark’s Chinese Lutheran Church, Metro United Bank, East West Bank, and First American Title Company (collectively, Defendants), alleging a cause of action for eminent domain. Plaintiff now moves for an order of prejudgment possession and certification of tax information.
SANTA BARBARA FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT VS N SCOTT VINCENT ET AL
Background: On December 12, 2019, plaintiff Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) filed its complaint in eminent domain against defendants N. Scott Vincent (Vincent), trustee of the 2018 N. Scott Vincent Irrevocable Trust, of the 2018 James B. Vincent Irrevocable Trust, and of the 2018 John J. Vincent Irrevocable Trust, Photothermal Spectroscopy Corporation (Photothermal), Sue F.
STATE ROUTE 4 BYPASS VS. NUNN
The Authority seeks to condemn certain property located in Brentwood using eminent domain. (Comp. ¶¶1-4.) The properties will be taken in order to construct a bicycle / pedestrian crossing over Highway 4 as part of the Mokelumne Trail. (Comp. ¶2 and ex. A.) This case involves property located at APN 019-020-037. (Comp. 4.) The Authority seeks to take a portion of the property owned by Ronald Nunn.
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, , IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ALAMEDA CORRIDOR-EAST CONSTRUCTION PROJECT VS GYULIZAR KOPUSHYAN, ET AL.
(MERS) solely as a nominee for Arcstone Financial alleging a cause of action for eminent domain. Plaintiff now moves for an order of prejudgment possession and certification of tax information. The motion is unopposed.
PEOPLE V. MHC PONDEROSA
Government Claim Requirement “(a) Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 426.60, this article applies to eminent domain proceedings. ¶ (b) The related cause of action may be asserted by cross-complaint in an eminent domain proceeding whether or not the party asserting such cause of action has presented a claim in compliance with Part 3 (commencing with Section 900) of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code to the plaintiff in the original eminent domain proceeding.”
CITY OF TRACY, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS MICHAEL DURKEE ET AL.
eminent domain action.
GAIL HOLLANDER ET AL VS XL CAPITAL LTD ET AL
In addition, in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover postoffer costs of the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the defendant. (CCP § 998(c)(1).)
Honchiraw stated that “the reason the mandamus proceeding must include the constitutional taking issue is that the court's determination that a regulatory taking has occurred triggers a range of options for the public entity—it could approve the project as proposed, conditionally approve the project, or exercise the power of eminent domain. (Hensler, supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 11, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 244, 876 P.2d 1043.)
STATE ROUTE 4 BYPASS VS NUNN FAMILY
The Partnership argues that Government Code section 7267.2 requires the Bypass Authority to make an offer of just compensation to the owners of record property and also provide each owner with information about the eminent domain process and the property owner’s rights. Each owner must also be named as a defendant in the eminent domain proceeding. (CCP 1240.040, 1245.220.) The property owned by Mr. Nunn was referenced in the appraisal done by the Bypass Authority. (Nunn Decl. ¶10.)
In addition, in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover costs of the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial or arbitration, or during trial or arbitration, of the case by the defendant.” (Code of Civil Procedure, § 998(c)(1).)
In addition, in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court . . . , in its discretion, may require the plaintiff to pay a reasonable sum to cover post-offer costs of the services of expert witnesses, who are not regular employees of any party, actually incurred and reasonably necessary in either, or both, preparation for trial . . . or during trial . . . of the case by the defendant.”
J. ASCENCION CALDERON VS BHULA M. PATEL
By 2003 the city of San Jose was executing eminent domain proceedings against the property. In a letter addressed to the attorneys dated 27 February 2003, Judge Baines suggested that a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 664.6 to enforce the settlement might be in order. That motion was eventually filed on 15 March 2019 for a hearing date on 30 April 2020.
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, IN FURTHERANCE OF THE ALAMEDA CORRIDOR-EAST CONSTRUCTION PROJECT VS JAMES M. MORRIS, ET AL.
Plaintiff relies on CCP section 1230.050(b), which provides the court with the power to “[e]nforce any of its orders for possession by appropriate process” in an eminent domain proceeding. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1230.050(b).) The Court declines to grant Plaintiff’s request permitting the issuance of a writ of assistance ex parte upon a declaration from Plaintiff.
THOMAS FELKAY V. CITY OF SANTA BARBARA
Great Oaks Water Co. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1005 …, the appellate court construed section 1235.140 of the Eminent Domain Law, which contains a definition of ‘litigation expenses’ substantially similar to that in section 1036. The city argued that the trial court erred by granting an award of attorney fees for time spent on a public utilities commission (PUC) proceeding subsequent to the eminent domain litigation.
TRIPPS AUTO V. CITY OF GRASS VALLEY 2-21-20
This provision of eminent domain law is applicable to an action for inverse condemnation. First, Defendant City files the present motion to exclude evidence of lost goodwill because it was not raised in the Answer to the City's condemnation complaint. However, the present action proceeding to trial is Plaintiffs' complaint for inverse condemnation, which clearly sets forth goodwill damages.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 next last »