City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court
124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Real parties own property near LAX and allege the City’s voluntary acquisitions, demolitions, and vacant-land maintenance constitute condemnation blight reducing property values.
- By the time of suit, the City had spent over $225 million acquiring Manchester Square properties and over $40 million acquiring Belford properties, acquiring a large majority of multifamily and single-family dwellings.
- The City demolished many acquired structures and relocated tenants; some vacated buildings were used for fire department training or film shoots.
- Real parties argued the City’s actions were deliberate to blight the area and depress values to facilitate cheaper future acquisitions, and that the City had de facto control over their lands.
- Real parties conceded the City claimed no current plan to develop or use the acquired properties; the City described the program as voluntary and intended to mitigate airport noise impacts.
- The trial court granted summary adjudication to real parties on the theory of condemnation blight; the appellate court reviews whether precondemnation conduct can support inverse condemnation and whether there was an actual public taking plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does condemnation blight create a duty to compensate? | Plotkin contends precondemnation conduct depresses value and amounts to a taking. | City argues no plan to condemn, no public use, and no taking; program is voluntary and not a condemnation. | No entitlement to summary adjudication; no precondemnation taking shown. |
| Is the inverse condemnation claim barred by the statute of limitations? | Real parties argue continuous damages extend limitations. | City contends limitations apply to precondemnation actions. | Not resolved on the merits; not necessary since precondemnation claim failed on other grounds. |
| Can Klopping-style precondemnation damages lie without a plan to condemn a specific parcel? | Plaintiffs rely on precondemnation interference to recover damages. | Absence of specific plan or condemnation resolution forecloses Klopping recovery. | Flopping/Klopping-style damages require a plan or intent to condemn and unreasonableness; not shown here. |
| Are precondemnation damages recoverable when land is held for public use but no plan exists to condemn the claimant's land? | Plaintiffs seek damages for blight and loss due to acquisition program. | No public-use plan for claimant’s parcels; damages not compensable absent public purpose. | Not recoverable; no public-use plan established for the affected parcels. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beaty v. Imperial Irrigation Dist., 186 Cal.App.3d 897 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (inverse condemnation requires taking or damaging of a property right and special injury)
- Customer Co. v. City of Sacramento, 10 Cal.4th 368 (Cal. 1995) (public-use requirement and compensation for damages near public improvements)
- Klopping v. City of Whittier, 8 Cal.3d 39 (Cal. 1972) (precondemnation announcements can support damages if conduct is unreasonable and tied to eventual condemnation)
- Selby Realty Co. v. City of San Buenaventura, 10 Cal.3d 110 (Cal. 1973) (general plans are not a taking; firm condemnation plans are required for damages)
- Taper v. City of Long Beach, 129 Cal.App.3d 590 (Cal. App. 1982) (precondemnation damages where city indicated intent to acquire and engaged in related actions)
- Peninsula Enterprises, Inc. v. Dep’t of Pub. Wks., 91 Cal.App.3d 332 (Cal. App. 1979) (precondemnation damages where city approached owners regarding acquisition)