201 Cal. App. 4th 492
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Joffe owns the property at 2100-2148 East Slauson Avenue, Huntington Park, and Plycraft operates a furniture manufacturing business there.
- From 2002 to 2008 City and developer defendants repeatedly expressed intent to acquire the two 40-acre parcels for a large development project called El Centro de Huntington Park.
- Plaintiffs allege that the City and developers appraised the property, analyzed Plycraft for relocation, and sought to obtain appraisals to negotiate purchase, while erecting signs announcing the project.
- Public and private statements allegedly indicated the City would acquire Joffe’s property either by purchase or by eminent domain, though the project never proceeded and no condemnation occurred.
- The trial court sustained the City defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, ruling plaintiffs failed to show an announcement of intent to condemn under Klopping.
- The court held that most conduct described was general planning and not an actionable precondemnation or postannouncement injury under Klopping.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Klopping trigger | Joffe and Plycraft allege an announcement or conduct sufficient under Klopping. | City conduct was general planning; no announcement of intent to condemn. | No Klopping entitlement; no imminent condemnation announcement. |
| Unreasonable delay after announcement | Aggregate precondemnation statements/elements constitute unreasonable delay. | Conduct was planning, not delaying, and did not constitute an actual announcement. | No viable Klopping-based delay claim. |
| Unreasonable precondemnation conduct independent of delay | Threats and activities consistent with condemnation show unreasonable conduct. | Allegations amount to planning, not improper conduct; no unreasonable acts. | Insufficient to state unreasonable precondemnation conduct. |
| Equitable or promissory estoppel | Statements induced reliance and damages; estoppel claims should lie. | No representations with knowledge of falsity; no reasonable reliance. | No equitable or promissory estoppel liability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klopping v. City of Whittier, 8 Cal.3d 39 (Cal. 1972) (announced precondemnation conduct can support inverse condemnation if injury to value and improper action occur)
- Barthelemy v. Orange County Flood Control Dist., 65 Cal.App.4th 558 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (no Klopping recovery without formal condemnation; planning lacks direct interference)
- Cambria Spring Co. v. City of Pico Rivera, 171 Cal.App.3d 1080 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (appraisals not direct acquisition; planning stage only)
- People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Peninsula Enterprises, Inc., 91 Cal.App.3d 332 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (special and direct interference required without a formal resolution)
- Terminals Equipment Co. v. City and County of San Francisco, 221 Cal.App.3d 234 (Cal. Ct. App. 1990) (informal assurances do not amount to acquisition acts)
- Toso v. City of Santa Barbara, 101 Cal.App.3d 934 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980) (precondemnation conduct must be aimed at acquisition)
- Johnson v. State of California, 90 Cal.App.3d 195 (Cal. Ct. App. 1979) (planning alone not sufficient to trigger liability)
- Border Business Park, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 142 Cal.App.4th 1538 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (distinguishes general planning from actionable interference)
- Behnke v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 196 Cal.App.4th 1443 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (equitable estoppel elements; standalone estoppel claim not viable)
- US Ecology, Inc. v. State of California, 129 Cal.App.4th 887 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (promissory estoppel requires reasonable reliance)