City of Livermore v. Baca
141 Cal. Rptr. 3d 271
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- City of Livermore sought three takings of portions of Baca's Airport Executive Center property for intersection-raising project.
- Baca sought permanent and temporary severance damages for the remainder value, drainage, view, slopes, and access impacts.
- Trial court conducted 10 days of in limine hearings and excluded all severance-damages evidence.
- A judgment was entered later, with Baca appealing the evidentiary rulings and project definition.
- Court treated in limine exclusion as a de novo nonsuit against Baca's severance-damages claims.
- Court addressed what constitutes severance damages and which project components may be considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether in limine exclusion equates to nonsuit | Baca | City | Exclusion acted as a de novo nonsuit; reversed for damages review. |
| Scope of severance damages admissibility | Baca | City | Permanent severance damages admissible for view, drainage, depth of lines, and traffic hazards. |
| Whether view and curb-appeal changes are compensable | Baca | City | Evidence not conjectural; jury may decide impact on market value. |
| Proper predicate for temporary severance damages and access effects | Baca | City | Detour and temporary loss of driveways and landscaping should go to jury; substantial impairment not always required. |
| Correct construction of the project defining the taking | Baca | City | Exclude contracts two and three from project definition; only contract one relevant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. California v. Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc., 41 Cal.4th 954 (Cal. 2007) (set predicate determinations for severance damages)
- Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State, 70 Cal.2d 282 (Cal. 1969) (view impacts can affect market value)
- City of Hollister v. McCullough, 26 Cal.App.4th 289 (Cal. App. 1994) (premise that effects on market value can be compensable)
- People ex rel. Dept. of Pub. Wks. v. Donovan, 57 Cal.2d 346 (Cal. 1962) (jury considers factors buyers consider in value)
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Lux Land Co., 194 Cal.App.2d 472 (Cal. App. 1961) (questions of fact for the jury on value-affecting factors)
- Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. California v. Campus Crusade for Christ. Inc., 41 Cal.4th 954 (Cal. 2007) (role of court vs. jury; predicates for severance damages)
- Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 1593 (Cal. App. 2008) (limine as demurrer-like tool; de novo review)
- Edwards v. Centex Real Estate Corp., 53 Cal.App.4th 15 (Cal. App. 1997) (in limine use may function as nonsuit)