How Does a Public Entity Claim Eminent Domain?

Useful Rulings on Eminent Domain

Recent Rulings on Eminent Domain

SHEETZ V. COUNTY OF EL DORADO

Any proceeding brought pursuant to this subdivision shall take precedence over all matters of the calendar of the court except criminal, probate, eminent domain, forcible entry, and unlawful detainer proceedings.” (Government Code, § 66020(d).)

  • Hearing

SAFFIRE VS CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED

Item 8.b of Cost Memo – Expert Fees "If an offer made by a plaintiff is not accepted and the defendant fails to obtain a more favorable judgment or award in any action or proceeding other than an eminent domain action, the court or arbitrator, in its discretion, may require the defendant 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 arbitration

  • Hearing

ANPING ZENG VS LOS ANGELES FILM REGIONAL CENTER II LP ET AL

A second case to which Jiang cites is Aetna Life, also involving eminent domain. (Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 865, 881.) Zeng contends that the Marshall holding does not apply because this contractual dispute is distinguishable from the inverse condemnation matter in Marshall, and Jiang contends that there are no grounds to distinguish the two. Zeng notes that the right to prejudgment interest in Marshall derived from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

  • Hearing

ANPING ZENG VS LOS ANGELES FILM REGIONAL CENTER II LP ET AL

A second case to which Jiang cites is Aetna Life, also involving eminent domain. (Aetna Life & Cas. Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 865, 881.) Zeng contends that the Marshall holding does not apply because this contractual dispute is distinguishable from the inverse condemnation matter in Marshall, and Jiang contends that there are no grounds to distinguish the two. Zeng notes that the right to prejudgment interest in Marshall derived from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

  • Hearing

DAMIAN LEMONS ET AL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

For example, a vehicle seized after its owner used it for an illegal liaison with a sex worker was held not to constitute a taking because it was “already lawfully acquired under the exercise of governmental authority other than the power of eminent domain.” (Bennis v. Michigan (1996) 516 U.S. 442, 452.) The same analysis has been held true of property seized “through civil rather than criminal proceedings,” such as the seizure of counterfeit goods at the behest of the holder of the original trademark.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THE CITY OF BANNING & HUYNH

FACTUAL / PROCEDURAL CONTEXT This is an eminent domain action brought by plaintiff City of Banning in connection with a project to widen Ramsey Street in Banning. The City actually seeks to acquire two different property interests.

  • Hearing

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

By this motion, True Horizons challenges County’s complaint in eminent domain. A public entity may not commence an eminent domain proceeding until its governing body has adopted a resolution of necessity. Code Civ. Proc. §1245.220.

  • Hearing

TIERNAN VS. DIABLO COMMUNITY S

The demurrer cites Code of Civil Procedure § 1250.230, a statute which the Intervenors properly point out addresses eminent domain proceedings and is not applicable. The parties, however, also address the case law on the standing necessary to bring a quiet title action. A long line of California authority requires the plaintiff asserting a quiet title claim to establish a claim to legal title to the property in question in order to have standing to assert this cause of action.

  • Hearing

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC BODY VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, A PUBLIC CORPORATION, ET AL.

Beaudet; Dept. 50 DISCLOSURE Action Filed: May 24, 2019 Judge Beaudet hereby discloses to the parties the following information: Judge Beaudet received a letter last week from a law firm that handles eminent domain cases indicating that certain undeveloped land that she owns in Lancaster, California, may be subject to an eminent domain effort next summer if the environmental report for the California High-Speed Rail project is approved.

  • Hearing

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, A PUBLIC BODY VS BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.

Beaudet; Dept. 50 DISCLOSURE Action Filed: May 24, 2019 Judge Beaudet hereby discloses to the parties the following information: Judge Beaudet received a letter last week from a law firm that handles eminent domain cases indicating that certain undeveloped land that she owns in Lancaster, California, may be subject to an eminent domain effort next summer if the environmental report for the California High-Speed Rail project is approved.

  • Hearing

CITY OF MORRO BAY V. VISTRA ENERGY, ET AL.

This is an action in eminent domain where the City of Morro Bay (Plaintiff or the City) seeks to take certain property (the Property) located at 1290 Embarcadero in Morro Bay, belonging to Defendants Vistra Energy Corp. and Dynegy Morro Bay, LLC.

  • Hearing

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT V. REGINALD E. DREW, JR., ET AL.

The Court said that “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

YORK POINT VIEW PROPERTIES LLC VS CITY OF RANCO PALOS VERDES

The City is confusing what it wants – which can be obtained through eminent domain or sale – with what York Point can be compelled to provide as mitigation for development. The City cannot adopt a Plan that requires a unique mitigation ratio for dedication of acreage based on a development’s impact on the City’s desire for a wildlife corridor. In sum, The City’s approval is not supported by fair and substantial reason.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ANGELA FLORES, ET AL. VS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

Hussey, (“Allen”) (1950)[10] 101 Cal.App.2d 457, in which an irrigation district used eminent domain to buy property—becoming subject to a public trust—and then leased it out for $1 a year. The court said this was unconstitutional and also a violation of trust principles with adverse ramifications for a purchaser with notice of a transfer in breach of the trust, including restoration of the property to the trust beneficiary. Id. at 467. Opp. at 7.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

WEST 43RD PLACE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

“Inverse condemnation occurs when there is a public taking of (or interference with) land without formal eminent domain proceedings.” (Serra Canyon Co. v. California Coastal Com. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 663, 669.)

  • Hearing

COUNTY OF EL DORADO V. SZEGEDY

Plaintiff argues that a preliminary injunction should issue to prevent defendant and the Doe defendants acting in concert with him from engaging in a persistent and continuous pattern of unreasonable interference with the County’s property interests acquired through eminent domain proceedings wherein defendant threatens County staff working on a project on the County’s real property interests that he will defend his property if the County exercised its lawful easement rights; removed surveying stakes placed

  • Hearing

HUGO ENRIQUE RIVERA VS. ANABEL GALLAGHER

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." (Code Civ. Proc. § 998(c)(1).)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS BIRD DOG PRODUCTIONS, LLC, ET AL.

Any risk inherent in a contingency fee agreement was ameliorated by the promise of a reasonable fee upon abandonment and the nature of eminent domain. To the extent the retainer agreement was a contingency fee arrangement, there was no risk of zero recovery. If Plaintiff prevailed, Defendant would still have been entitled just compensation for loss of his property through eminent domain. The contingency fee arrangement allowed for 40% of the excess over the Plaintiff’s initial offer. See Dec. of G.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

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

Moving party City of Tracy has established that it has the right to acquire, by eminent domain, the portion of Defendants’ property it seeks for the Corral Hollow Road Widening Project (“Project”). Str. & Hwy § 1810 (with county consent city may acquire property outside city limits to connect or widen streets of acquiring city); also Gov. C. §§ 37350.5, 40401 and 40404. By written agreement, County delegated to Tracy the power to acquire property in the County necessary for the Project.

  • Hearing

TIMOTHY BARKER, ET AL. VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.

The ‘public use’ requirement ‘goes to the legitimacy of the government's taking to begin with; if a taking is not for public use, the government has no right to complete the act of eminent domain.’ The unlawful seizure of property does not constitute a ‘public use.’

  • Hearing

WANETICK VS. E.B.M.U.D.

HEARING ON DEMURRER TO 1st Amended EMINENT DOMAIN COMPLAINT FILED BY CITY OF LAFAYETTE, CITY OF ORINDA * TENTATIVE RULING: * Off calendar per fax of moving party.

  • Hearing

MATERIALISE NV V. CONSENSUS ORTHOPEDICS

(writs), sections 1230.010–1268.720 (eminent domain). ¶ The Act is contained in Code of Civil Procedure Part 3—Of Special Proceedings of a Civil Nature. Section 22 defines an action as “an ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the declaration, enforcement, or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense.” Section 23 defines a special proceeding as “[e]very other remedy.” (See People v.

  • Hearing

ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT VS VAN LOON

“The plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain.” The plaintiff has the power of eminent domain. The defendants do not appear to argue otherwise. 2. “The plaintiff has deposited pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 1255.010) an amount that satisfies the requirements of that article.” The plaintiff has made a deposit. The defendants deny, however, that it is sufficient. A deposit is sufficient if it is supported by an appraisal of the “probable amount of compensation.”

  • Hearing

KESTER V. COUNTY OF FRESNO

Ventura County (1955) 45 Cal.2d 276, 285 (abrogated on other grounds) [maintenance within the purview of inverse condemnation/eminent domain].) Simple negligence cannot support a constitutional claim for inverse condemnation. (Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722, 742.) Rather, the necessary finding is that the wrongful act be part of the deliberate design, construction, or maintenance of the public improvement. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

CITY OF GOLETA V. DONALD FRIEDMAN, ET AL.

City’s reply relies upon precedence given to eminent domain matters, and necessity that right to take issues be determined early so that a public entity may determine whether a construction project may be placed at risk by a potentially meritorious challenge to the right to take. It contends that parties need to adapt to pandemic conditions, with respect to taking depositions and conducting other discovery.

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 26     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.