On December 24, 2018, Plaintiffs Sub Corporation, LTD and Square Deal Recordings & Supplies, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in inverse condemnation against Defendants City of San Luis Obispo (the “City”) and City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department (the “Fire Department”) (collectively here “Defendants”). Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for inverse condemnation was pleaded against the City, and Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for inverse condemnation was pleaded against the Fire Department. The action arises out of a fire at Plaintiffs’ property on December 26, 2015, and Defendants’ firefighting policies.
Defendants demurred to both causes of action on the grounds that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation against Defendants. The Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on June 25, 2019 (the “FAC”). Plaintiffs alleged (1) inverse condemnation agains
Hearing Date
July 22, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
On December 24, 2018, Plaintiffs Sub Corporation, LTD and Square Deal Recordings & Supplies, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint in inverse condemnation against Defendants City of San Luis Obispo (the “City”) and City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department (the “Fire Department”) (collectively here “Defendants”). Plaintiffs’ first cause of action for inverse condemnation was pleaded against the City, and Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for inverse condemnation was pleaded against the Fire Department. The action arises out of a fire at Plaintiffs’ property on December 26, 2015, and Defendants’ firefighting policies.
Defendants demurred to both causes of action on the grounds that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation against Defendants. The Court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on June 25, 2019 (the “FAC”). Plaintiffs alleged (1) inverse condemnation agains