How Does a Public Entity Claim Eminent Domain?

Useful Rulings on Eminent Domain

Recent Rulings on Eminent Domain

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA V. TRUE HORIZONS, LLC, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

ANNA AVENUE ASSOCIATES LLC VS. SANDAG

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Breach

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

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.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

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.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

CITY OF TRACY, A CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION VS MICHAEL DURKEE ET AL.

eminent domain action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

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).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

FE&M INC VS CITY OF GLENDALE

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

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.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

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.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2020

DITLEVSEN V. PEDERSEN

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).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

DITLEVSEN V. PEDERSEN

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).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

HARRY TRAN VS ST. GEORGE & ASSOCIATES

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.”

  • Hearing

    May 28, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    May 21, 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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 18, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Mar 17, 2020

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.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

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.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

  • Judge

    Dept. 6

  • County

    Nevada County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.