Eminent Domain Report

When a public agency is acquiring private property for a public project, typically the key issue in dispute is how much the agency should pay -- what is “just compensation”? Determining the property’s value and any damages from the acquisition or public project is usually based on appraisals prepared for the public agency and property owner. A recent article written by Lauren Alexander, on behalf of the Owners' Counsel of America (a network of experienced eminent domain attorneys dedicated to defending the rights of private property owners across the US), highlights the top 10 ...

When a property owner commits to developing property in a certain manner, including providing a certain number of parking spaces, and the local government agency enforces the owner’s failure to comply, does the enforcement result in a taking? As expected, the answer is no -- there is no taking. This was the outcome of a recent court of appeal decision, 3558 Sagunto St. v. County of Santa Barbara (2020 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5328).

Background

In 3558 Sagunto St., a property owner owned two adjacent parcels, and submitted a development plan which designated a certain number of parking ...

We routinely get calls from owners facing impacts to their property or business as a result of construction of a public project or changes in adjacent public streets. For example, the city or county may close a road, create a cul-de-sac, turn a two-way street into a one-way street, close a driveway, relocate an off-ramp, or change a road’s elevation. When there is no physical taking of property, do these public improvements trigger a taking entitling an owner to compensation? It is a tricky, heavily fact-intensive inquiry, but generally, the analysis centers around whether the ...

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic a number of local jurisdictions throughout the country adopted ordinances freezing rents and prohibiting or limiting evictions. Not surprisingly, some landlords were not particularly pleased with these enactments, as they saw their properties occupied without the associated rental stream and still all the related carrying costs. In response, lawsuits were filed in federal and state court alleging that these enactments violated the federal and state constitution, including the takings clause. However, so far these arguments don’t ...

After adopting a resolution of necessity and initiating eminent domain proceedings to acquire private property, public agencies are usually in a rush to move forward with the proposed public project.  But every once in a while, those projects get delayed or postponed.  A recent court of appeal decision, Rutgard v. City of Los Angeles (2020) Cal.App. LEXIS 709, serves as an important reminder for public agencies that they must put the property to public use within 10 years or otherwise timely adopt a new resolution of necessity.  Absent doing so, the public agency has an obligation to offer ...

It is Christmas in July for eminent domain practitioners! We have a California Supreme Court opinion on a condemnation case, which is rare. The case, Weiss v. People ex rel. Department of Transportation (2020 Cal. LEXIS 4357), is an inverse condemnation action where the main question is this: Can you make a Code of Civil Procedure Section 1260.040 motion, also known as a Legal Issues Motion, in an inverse condemnation action? According to the Supreme Court, the answer is no, these motions are meant to address valuation issues in eminent domain actions -- not determine liability in an ...

During Nossaman's recent webinar concerning Transit & Transportation Project Success in the Wake of the Pandemic, I addressed Temporary Construction Easement (TCE) issues. For a re-cap of my presentation on this topic please click here.

Additionally, to view our entire webinar "A Path to Transit & Transportation Project Success in the Wake of the Pandemic: A Panel Discussion Among Legal Professionals," please click here to access the full on-demand recording.

We continue to monitor developments related to COVID-19 and are available to respond to questions and discuss issues ...

On June 30, 2020, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 350 (“SB 350”), which is intended to serve as a backstop for customers as Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) completes its restructuring process and begins implementing the reorganization plan recently confirmed by the United States Bankruptcy Court. The bill, named the Golden State Energy Act, gives the State authority to take certain actions if PG&E does not comply with the terms of its reorganization plan.

SB 350 establishes a new entity named Golden State Energy (“GSE”) to serve as a nonprofit public ...

As you may recall, it wasn’t too long after Governor Newsom issued his executive order mandating the closure of certain businesses in California that the first takings lawsuit was filed. (See our coverage of Gondola Adventures, Inc. v. Gavin Newsom, U.S.D.C. Case No. 2:20-cv-03789 here.) That lawsuit alleged that the response by the state and county agencies to the COVID-19 situation violated the state and federal constitutions, and resulted in a partial or complete taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Notably, the case was voluntarily dismissed ...

Our presentation on "Inverse Condemnation Exposure and Management for the Energy Industry" will be available for viewing during the 2020 American Association of Professional Landmen's (AAPL) Annual Meeting. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this event will be held virtually and presentations will be prerecorded and available to view on demand after the scheduled live run time on June 18th. Registration is required, but access will be available as a complimentary benefit for all AAPL members.

The 2020 event still promises to be a professional development and land conference ...