Cases: Eminent Domain

Eminent Domain/POOF: Once Precondemnation Damages Reversed, Substantial Attorney’s Fees/Litigation Expense Award Goes Permanently POOF!

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: POOF!

       California’s Department of Transportation in People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation v. McNamara, Case No. H036228 (6th Dist. Aug. 14, 2013) (published) was hit with a $1.6 million damages award, inclusive of $400,000 for precondemnation damages. Depending on the spread between the condemnee’s final settlement demand and DOT’s final offer as well as […]

Eminent Domain/Civil Rights: Court Properly Awarded $728,015.50 In Attorney’s Fees When Plaintiffs Recovered In Inverse Condemnation But Lost Civil Rights Claim

Cases: Civil Rights, Cases: Eminent Domain

No Apportionment Necessary Where Noninverse Condemnation Claim Relevant to Inverse Claim; No Statement of Decision Required Either.     Code of Civil Procedure section 1036 provides that a trial court shall fix attorney's fees and costs expenses to a prevailing plaintiff in an inverse condemnation proceeding.      Section 1036 was the centerpiece of the fee ruling appealed

Costs/Deadlines/Eminent Domain: Defendant Condemnee’s Failure To Timely File Costs Memorandum Was Fatal For Recovery Of Appellate Costs

Cases: Costs, Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Eminent Domain

  Also, U.S. Supreme Court Brief Printing Costs Cannot Be Awarded as Costs By State Courts.      Defendant condemnee was allowed the opportunity, after a prior appeal, to seek costs under Code of Civil Procedure section 1268.720, a statutory provision allowing appellate costs in an eminent domain proceeding in the court’s discretion (Los Angeles Unified

Deadlines/Eminent Domain: Inverse Condemnation Fee Awards To Plaintiffs Affirmed After Trial Court Allowed Supplemental Briefing

Cases: Deadlines, Cases: Eminent Domain

  Argument Not Raised Below and No Abuse of Discretion Anyway.      Warren v. City of Compton, Case No. B235001 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Oct. 1, 2012) (unpublished) involved a situation where two respective plaintiffs won compensatory damages against City for water leaks and then were separately awarded $109,900 and $93,619 in attorney’s fees under

Eminent Domain/POOF!: $233,750 Litigation Expense Award To Condemnee Under Conditional Dismissal Order Goes POOF When Order Is Vacated

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: POOF!

  Appellate Court Decides that Conditional Dismissal Order Issuance Was Error.      Council of San Benito County Governments must be sighing with relief based on the appellate court vacating a conditional dismissal in an eminent domain proceeding. In Council of San Benito County Governments v. Hollister Inn, Inc., Case No. H036629 (6th Dist. Sept. 19,

Eminent Domain: Defendant Winning Notice Issue In Eminent Domain Complicated Action Denied Litigation Expense Reimbursement Because Case Was Taken On Contingency

Cases: Eminent Domain

  4/2 Appellate Court Found Salton Bay Marina Persuasive on the Issue.      Although way too complicated to discuss in full, defendant lost but also won some aspects (including obtaining a reversal on a taking issue) in a complex eminent domain case. Among other things, plaintiff water district had to conditionally dismiss at one point

Eminent Domain/Settlement: Condemnee Was Paid Promised Litigation Expenses Under Settlement Agreement At Trial Level

Cases: Eminent Domain, Cases: Settlement

  However, Remand Was Necessary to Fix His Litigation Expenses on Appeal.      Department of Transportation reached a settlement with condemnee for a right of way purchase under which DOT agreed to pay a certain sum inclusive of interest, fee, and costs. DOT paid. Condemnee, not satisfied, filed a costs memorandum claiming $38,957.50 in costs

Eminent Domain: Government Entity Accepting Property Owners’ Final Demand Several Days Before Trial Cannot Be Exposed To Litigation Expenses Award Under CCP § 1250.410

Cases: Eminent Domain

  Ruling Requires Reversal of Litigation Expenses Award, $57,224.50 Of Which Was Attorney’s Fees.      People ex rel. Dept. of Transp. v. Superior Court (Menigoz), Case No. C069391 (3d Dist. Mar. 1, 2012) (certified for publication) is one for our eminent domain readers.      In this one, DOT accepted property owners’ final demand of $189,000

Eminent Domain/Inverse Condemnation: Trial Court’s $421,826 Award To Prevailing Plaintiffs In Inverse Condemnation Award Stands

Cases: Eminent Domain

  Lower Court Failed to Use Correct Lodestar Methodology, But Basing On Contingency Fee Percentage Was Not Prejudicial.      Code of Civil Procedure section 1036 does allow an attorney’s fees award to successful inverse condemnation plaintiffs. Fee entitlement was not the basis for the challenge to a $421,826 fee award to plaintiffs obtaining several million

Scroll to Top