Cases: Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain: $953,861.25 Fee Award To Prevailing Inverse Condemnation Plaintiff Is Reversed And Remanded, Needing To Be Tailored To Actual Contingency Arrangement Of Fees Incurred By Plaintiff

Cases: Eminent Domain

Allowing Plaintiff To Obtain Broader Civil Rights-Type Fees Would Circumvent “Actually Incurred” Restriction in Civil Code Section 1036.             Plaintiff must have been ecstatic in Johnson v. South San Joaquin Irrigation Dist., Case No. C079200 (3d Dist. Dec. 12, 2018) (unpublished), after winning an inverse condemnation/tort case against irrigation district after it closed a storm […]

Eminent Domain/Undertaking:  Trial Judge Has Discretion To Impose Undertaking On Defendant Making A Postjudgment Withdrawal Of An Increased Deposit By Condemning Agency

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: Undertaking

Undertaking Was Prudent Given Condemnor Was Appealing Abandonment Denial Decision, Such That Attorney’s Fees Might Be In Order Down The Line.             Eminent domain and inverse condemnation are boutique practice areas, but we attempt to report on all substantive areas.  Here is a very technical decision relating to postjudgment withdrawal of an increased deposit made

Eminent Domain:  Trial Court Correctly Awarded Litigation Expenses To Condemnee Where Condemnor’s Final Offer Was Only 54 Percent Of Verdict In Favor Of Condemnee For Taken Property

Cases: Eminent Domain

CCP § 1250.410 Allows Discretionary Fee Awards Where Trial Court Finds Final Offer Of Compensation Unreasonable And Property Owner’s Final Demand Reasonable.             Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410 allows trial courts to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs (which also include reasonable expert witness and appraiser fees), as litigation expenses, to the property owner

Eminent Domain/POOF!: Postjudgment Fee Awards Against Condemnor In Eminent Domain Action Reversed Because Owner’s Demand Was Not Reasonable And Agency’s Demand Was Not Unreasonable

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: POOF!

  $122.650 In Awarded Attorney’s Fees And $61,007.34 In Expert Fees Went Away On Appeal – POOF!      In San Diego Assn. of Governments (SANDAG) v. Vanta, Case Nos. D065476 & D066560 (4th Dist., Div. 1 July 20, 2016) (unpublished), Vanta obtained a $1,441,095.20 compensatory award in an eminent domain case after Vanta offered to

Eminent Domain: Fee-Shifting Award In Inverse Condemnation Cases Under CCP § 1036 Cannot Exceed Fees Actually Incurred Via Contingency Agreements With Prosecuting Attorneys

Cases: Eminent Domain

  Salton Bay Marina Found Distinguishable, But Third District Disagrees If Its Reasoning Was Applicable In Determining Fee Award.      The Third District in Pacific Shores Property Owners Assn. v. Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Case No. C070201 (3d Dist. Jan. 20, 2016) (published) dealt with a situation where plaintiff in an inverse condemnation case

Eminent Domain: Condemnor’s Conditional Settlement Offer Was Unreasonable For Purposes Of Fee Shifting Purposes Under CCP § 1250.410

Cases: Eminent Domain

  Legal Error To Deny Fees For Property Owners Facing Uncertain Offer.     Although this case involves fee-shifting under a specific eminent domain context, it really applies analogous uncertainty principles in civil contexts encountered daily by other California litigators.     City & County of San Francisco v. PCF Acquisition, LLC, Case No. A139836 (1st Dist.,

Eminent Domain: Appellate Court Finds Flexibility Should Be Afforded To Trial Courts In Determining Which Statutory Demand/Offer Applies In Determining Whether Litigation Expenses Awarded To Property Owner

Cases: Eminent Domain

  Demand/Offer Consideration Not Limited To First Exchange Battle And Amount Of Compensation Actually Fixed Can Be The Beacon For Litigation Expense Decision In Bifurcated Trial—Bottom Line Is That Exchanges On Continued Trial Date Geared To Final Compensation Fix Can Be Used For Litigation Expense Determination In Bifurcated Trial Context.      People ex rel. CALTRANS

Eminent Domain: Condemnee Winning $8 Million Jury Verdict Award Was Entitled To Litigation Expenses (Inclusive Of Fees) Erroneously Denied By Trial Judge

Cases: Eminent Domain

  Condemnor’s Final Settlement Offer Was $954,000; Condemnee’s Final Demand Was $4.5 Million—Condemnor’s Offer Was Not Done With Good Faith Accuracy.      California’s eminent domain statutory scheme has a very specific fee shifting statute, allowing successful condemnees to obtain recovery of litigation expenses (including attorney’s fees) as measured by the final offers from condemnors versus

Costs/Eminent Domain/Prevailing Party: Inverse Condemnation Plaintiffs Obtaining Earlier Reversal Of Defense Summary Judgment Entitled To Routine Appellate Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: Prevailing Party

  However, Attorney’s Fees Award Was Premature Until Judgment or Settlement Obtained Under Inverse Condemnation Fee-Shifting Provision.      In an earlier appeal, Plaintiffs had obtained a reversal of a defense summary judgment in an inverse condemnation case, with the appellate court directing that the lower court consider a request for fees under Code of Civil

Scroll to Top