Dispute Involved Town Of Apple Valley’s Effort To Obtain A Private Water System Through Condemnation. Town of Apple Valley v. Apple Valley Ranchos Water, Case No. E078348 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Jan. 15, 2025) (published) involved a more than 2-year battle in which Town of Apple Valley (TAV) attempted to acquire a private water […]
City’s Final Offer Was Unreasonable, While Condemnees’ Revised Final Demand Was Reasonable Because Its Demand Was The Exact Damages Award By The Lower Court. Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410 allows a lower court to an eminent domain case to award defendant's costs and fees where the mandated exchange of a final demand and
Both Sides Were Off About $21 Million In Their Eminent Domain Final Proposals, So Nothing Showed Bad Faith By County In Its Final Offer. County of Los Angeles v. 8400 S. Vermont Avenue, L.P., Case No. B326965 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Oct. 9, 2024) (unpublished) was a situation where County of Los Angeles and
Summary Judgment Grant Was A Predicate For CCP § 1268.610 Fees, And Lower Court Made Reductions For Duplicative Work. In City of Ontario v. We Buy Homes Any Condition, LLC, Case No. D083080 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 19, 2024 filed) (published on July 31, 2024), City lost an eminent domain case at the
Plaintiff Wanted $1.942 Million; However, Trial Court Properly Awarded Only $360,438.45 In Fees. [U.S. Army induction center, ca. 1942]. Getting haircuts. CA 1942. Library of Congress This next case illustrates how fee requests need to be reasonable and supported by proper substantiation. If not, the litigant will get a sizable “haircut,” which is exactly
Inverse Condemnation Award Reversed As A Matter of Law, Such That $529,540.50 Fee/Costs Award Went POOF! Also. On March 19, 2020, we posted on Ruiz v. County of San Diego, Case No. D074654, a Fourth District, Division 1 opinion which was unpublished at the time. In that decision, the appellate court reversed an inverse
Merits Reversal Hinged On City Not Bearing Responsibility For Private Pipeline Non-Maintenance Where City Refused A Public Dedication Offer. In Ruiz v. County of San Diego, Case No. D074654 (4th Dist., Div. 1 March 17, 2020) (unpublished), Plaintiff homeowners obtained a $328,000 inverse condemnation award against the County of
$818,544 In CCP § 1036 Fees And $182,627 In Costs Went POOF! Code of Civil Procedure section 1036 provides: “In any inverse condemnation proceeding, the court rendering judgment for the plaintiff by awarding compensation, or the attorney representing the public entity who effects a settlement of that proceeding, shall determine and award or allow
Small Differential Led Appellate Court Majority To Affirm Trial Court’s Litigation Expense Denial, While Concurring Justice Should Hold That Acceptance Of Caltrans’s Actual Final Offer Was Reasonable As A Matter Of Law. In People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. Karimi, Case No. E069448 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Sept. 16, 2019, posted Sept. 17,
Sixth District Agreed With Third District’s Analysis On The Scope Of CCP § 1036. The Sixth District, in Herrera v. City of San Jose, Case No. H042211 (6th Dist. June 28, 2019) (unpublished) had to face an inverse condemnation fee issue which pops up frequently when the plaintiff “condemnee” is entitled to some amount
