Otay Mesa Property, L.P. v. United States
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1330
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Otay Mesa properties own eleven adjacent parcels in Otay Mesa, near the Mexican border; 1992 Border Patrol easement granted along the border to monitor activity.
- After 9/11, Border Patrol operations expanded on Otay Mesa land.
- In 2006 Otay Mesa sued in the Court of Federal Claims alleging a permanent and exclusive occupation triggering just compensation under the Takings Clause.
- The government stipulated liability for installing and operating underground seismic sensors on five parcels (Nos. 1,3,4,5,10) between 1999 and 2005, creating a blanket easement.
- The Court of Federal Claims held the sensor easement was temporary, awarded Otay Mesa $3,043,051 based on fair market rent; it limited damages to the five stipulation parcels.
- On appeal, the government challenges the temporary-take ruling and damages method; Otay Mesa cross-appeals the scope of the taking and period.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sensor easement is a permanent or temporary taking | Otay Mesa: taking is temporary due to end events; easement ends on sensor removal or development. | Government: easement is perpetual and terminable only by speculative events; supports permanent taking. | Permanent taking; not temporary. |
| Appropriate damages methodology for a permanent easement taken | Otay Mesa argues before-and-after may apply or other tailored measure; not just rental value. | Government contends before-and-after or other traditional method may apply; rental value used initially. | Remand for damages using a method that compensates precisely what was taken; not limited to rental value. |
| Scope of the taking (parcels and time period) | Five parcels and 1999–2008 may be too narrow; sensors on additional parcels historically. | Stipulation governs scope; limited to five parcels and stated period. | Court of Federal Claims did not clearly err; scope limited to stipulation. |
| Impact of permanent classification on compensation amount | Permanent easement should yield appropriate compensation not necessarily lower than temporary. | Permanent status could imply different valuation but must be just compensation. | Remand to determine just compensation consistent with permanent easement; not automatically less. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1949) (temporary taking; rental value as measure of compensation)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (permanent taking; cable installation cannot be avoided by conduct of owner)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1987) (assumed taking for purposes of analysis; temporary vs permanent not dispositive)
- Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (U.S. 2002) (regulatory takings; no per se rule; context matters)
- Bass Enterprises Prod. Co. v. United States, 133 F.3d 893 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (termination of prohibition not necessarily fatal to liability; statutory context matters)
- Speir v. United States, 485 F.2d 643 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (temporary vs permanent takings analysis in early cases (easement context))