City of Ontario v. We Buy Houses Any Condition, D083080

The City of Ontario filed an eminent domain action to acquire multiple vacant industrial lots owned by We Buy Houses Any Condition, LLC, adjacent to Ontario International Airport.
The City’s resolution of necessity cited "mitigation of airport impacts and elimination of blight" as the public uses, but did not describe any specific project for the property.
We Buy Houses moved for summary judgment, arguing the City had not identified a proposed project as required by California’s Eminent Domain Law.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of We Buy Houses and awarded them reduced attorney’s fees, finding the City had committed a gross abuse of discretion by failing to articulate a proposed project.
The City appealed both the summary judgment and the fee award, arguing errors in legal standard and the fee calculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a specific project must be identified to exercise eminent domain	City: Only public use, not a specific project, is required; or exceptions apply	We Buy Houses: Statute requires a proposed project	Must identify a proposed project; City’s general citation to blight or airport mitigation not enough
Whether the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) exempts the City from project identification	CRL’s policy on blight authorizes eminent domain for blight elimination without specific project	CRL does not override project identification requirement; redevelopment agencies now dissolved	CRL does not provide an exemption; City must still comply with Eminent Domain Law
Whether authorities for airport-related land acquisition exempt compliance with Eminent Domain Law	Statutes relating to airports allow condemnation for noise/safety impacts without stating project	General authorities don’t waive requirement for a proposed project	No exemption; City must identify a proposed use even for airport-related condemnation
Whether attorney fee award for We Buy Houses was an abuse of discretion	Fees unrelated to summary judgment and duplicative should not be recoverable	Fees were reasonable and necessary; City’s expert not credible	No abuse of discretion; trial court properly reduced and explained fee award

City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC, 171 Cal.App.4th 93 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (must identify a specific proposed project in a resolution of necessity under eminent domain law)
City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders, 203 Cal.App.3d 78 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988) (standard for reviewing attorney fee awards is abuse of discretion)
City of San Jose v. Great Oaks Water Co., 192 Cal.App.3d 1005 (Cal. Ct. App. 1987) (litigation expenses recoverable even if case resolved before trial in eminent domain actions)