Eminent Domain Report

Another recent interesting court decision was somewhat lost in all the excitement last week over (1) the County of Los Angeles v. Glendora Redevelopment Project case striking down Glendora's redevelopment plan for inadequate blight findings and (2) the US Supreme Court decision in the Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection case rejecting a "judicial takings" claim. 

That recent decision was by the California Court of Appeal in City of San Jose v. Union Pacific Railroad, which came down a month ago, but received little ...

The Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection case received considerable attention both before the Supreme Court agreed to hear it, and following the very colorful oral argument before the Court last December. 

At issue was whether Florida's efforts to restore some of its beaches through depositing 75-feet of sand seaward of the high-tide line rose to the level of a taking due to the restoration work's causing former beach-front owners' property lines to be moved further away from the ocean water.  

What made the case even ...

One of the big issues in eminent domain over the past five years has been the role of blight in justifying eminent domain for redevelopment purposes.  The seminal decision (that started all the ruckus) -- Kelo v. City of New London -- involved the use of eminent domain for redevelopment purposes where the city did not even pretend it was acting to eliminate blight.

Kelo had little direct impact on California's eminent domain law, because even before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in 2005, California's law allowed eminent domain for redevelopment purposes only upon a proper showing ...

Earlier this week, Chino Hills voted 3-0 (with two members abstaining for conflict reasons) to appeal an earlier court ruling that the Public Utilities Commission has "exclusive jurisdiction with regard to the right-of-way property rights issue between the City and SCE regarding the Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project route through Chino Hills."  

Southern California Edison's Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project is a massive, $1.8 billion project designed, in large part, to connect wind farms in the Tehachapi area to the main electrical grid.  The project ...

A May 14 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarifies the rules regarding when a plaintiff may sue for inverse condemnation in federal court.  In Adams Bros. Farming v. County of Santa Barbara No. 09-55315 (May 14, 2010), the Court rejected an inverse condemnation claim brought against the County, where the County allegedly effected a taking by improperly designating part of the owner's property as wetlands. 

The case involves a long, fairly tortured history that dates back to the late 1990's, when the County (apparently erroneously) designated about 95 acres of "Rancho ...

A decision this week by the California Court of Appeal holds that a purchaser of property suffering damages through government conduct may not sue for inverse condemnation where:

1. The buyer knowingly purchases property impacted by a government taking, and
2. The purchase price reflects the property’s condition in light of the government impacts.

In Ridgewater Associates, Inc. v. Dublin San Ramon Services District (May 11, 2010) __ Cal.App.4th __, it was largely undisputed that the District's waste water treatment facility caused water intrusion damage on a neighboring warehouse ...

OK, before I get into this one, you should know that I've been sitting on this story for a week, trying to decide whether it warranted a blog post.  I still haven't quite figured out what happened, and I was just about to let it go, but then my colleague Brad Kuhn pointed out earlier today that the very fact that the whole thing is so odd makes it worthy of a discussion.  So here goes. 

Last week, the City of San Clemente appealed from an earlier ruling by an Orange County Superior Court judge that the City of San Clemente was liable for a taking that resulted when the City (apparently in secret) down ...

Last week, my colleague Rick Rayl blogged about the Ninth Circuit's issuing an order granting an en banc hearing of the Guggenheim case involving the City of Goleta's mobile home park rent control ordinance.  If anyone is interested in a more in-depth analysis of the issues of that case, how the en banc process works, how politics come into play, and how the Ninth Circuit may ultimately come out on the regulatory takings issue, Rick and I prepared a more in-depth article that addresses those issues.  The article, "9th Circuit Revisits 2009 Trailer Park Opinion," was published in the Daily ...

After a flurry of post-Kelo activity, cries for eminent domain reform seem to have quieted in California in the past couple of years.  Now, public utility companies are seeking to step into the calm in an effort to roll back some of the reforms that did occur.

One of the recent changes to California eminent domain law involves the procedures for obtaining prejudgment possession.  Before Kelo, agencies could almost guarantee possession quickly.  In fact, they could obtain orders for possession ex parte, meaning they didn't even have to provide owners with notice that they were seeking ...

We reported earlier this week about the Ninth Circuit's March 12 order to hold an en banc hearing of its decision in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta.  The case involves a regulatory takings challenge to the City's rent control ordinance involving mobile home parks. 

On March 15, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District (San Diego) issued its opinion in MHC Financing Limited Partnership Two v. City of Santee (March 15, 2010, Case No. D053345).  The court rejected plaintiff's regulatory takings claim involving a City of Santee rent control ordinance, concluding that the as ...

Last fall, we reported on the Ninth Circuit's decision in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, a regulatory takings case that generated considerable interest.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the City of Goleta's rent control ordinance constituted a taking and ordered the City to pay just compensation to the owner of a mobile home park. 

The Court concluded that the ordinance crossed the line because it had the effect of transferring as much as 90 percent of the property's value from the owner to the mobile home park's tenants.  The holding was significant not only because the ...

Last week, I reported on Kimco of Evansville, Inc. v. State of Indiana, an access-impairment case pending for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court.   

In an order earlier today, the Court denied the Petition for Writ of Certiorari.  This is not entirely surprising; in the same order in which the Court denied the Petition in the Kimco case, the Court also denied similar petitions in 175 other cases.  The Supreme Court grants Petitions in less than five percent of the cases presented to it.  

The Court still has pending before it another eminent domain case, Stop the Beach ...

According to a January 10 post on the Fox Rothschild Eminent Domain & Real Estate Litigation Blog, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hold a conference this week on whether to grant a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on an access-impairment claim arising from a condemnation case in Indiana, Kimco of Evansville, Inc. v. State of Indiana. 

Post author David Snyder explains that the need for Supreme Court review arises from a "general rule" in most states that damages arising from access impairments are not compensable as long as the owner is left with reasonable access, and the belief ...

Perhaps the most talked-about California eminent domain case in 2009 has been the City of Stockton v. Marina Towers decision, in which the Court struck down the City's right to take property where the resolution of necessity contained no real public purpose (not surprising, since the City did not know at the time it filed the action what it would do with the property).   The case's tag-line usually played out like this:  the "project" was the condemnation itself, which does not qualify as a public purpose.   

This holding was itself somewhat interesting, as California law ...

Typically, regulatory takings litigation generates a lot of noise and gnashing of teeth but, at the end of the day, rarely are government agencies bitten with an order that they pay compensation. However, a new opinion from the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (Sept. 28, 2009, Case No. 06-56306), demonstrates that regulatory takings litigation can have teeth. In Guggenheim, the 9th Circuit holds that the city of Goleta's rent control ordinance on mobile home parks went too far and that the city will have to pay the park's owners just compensation ...