54 Cal.App.5th 823
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) acquired Santa Fe’s San Jacinto Branch Line and planned a Metrolink extension that conflicted with five Southern California Gas Company (Gas Company) pipelines crossing the rail corridor.
- Gas had municipal franchises to place pipelines in public streets and had separate licenses from Santa Fe for four conflict points; one conflict point had no license.
- The Commission terminated the licenses and demanded Gas relocate pipelines at Gas’s expense; parties agreed Gas would relocate and Commission provisionally paid $562,155 under protest while reserving rights to sue for reimbursement; actual relocation cost was $1,229,737.
- The trial court awarded the Commission reimbursement of the provisional payment but granted summary adjudication for Gas on quiet title, trespass, and declaratory claims; both parties appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it held Gas must bear relocation costs; but where licenses existed, termination could give rise to trespass liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commission) | Defendant's Argument (Gas Co.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title to conflict points | Deeds from Santa Fe conveyed the rail corridor and thus included the conflict points | Gas argued Commission failed to prove ownership of the specific conflict parcels | Held: Deeds and milepost descriptions established Commission ownership of the five conflict points (trial-court evidentiary issues waived on appeal) |
| Were Santa Fe licenses assigned to Commission | Commission: Licenses transferred as incidents of the property conveyance (Civ. Code §1084) and Commission ratified them | Gas: Licenses did not run with the land and were not properly assigned | Held: Licenses conveyed or were ratified/assumed by Commission; Commission can enforce termination provisions |
| Who pays relocation costs (common-law rule / PUC/statute) | Commission: Under common law (and §6297 where applicable) utilities accepting franchises must relocate at own expense for governmental uses | Gas: Argued statutory limits, PUC jurisdiction, or that project was proprietary so Commission must pay | Held: Common-law rule applies; Gas must pay relocation costs (§6297 does not displace the common-law rule here and Commission’s Metrolink extension was a proper governmental purpose) |
| Trespass for occupying/relocating lines | Commission: After license termination, continued occupancy or relocation onto Commission land can be trespass | Gas: Bello and municipal franchises allow utilities to occupy street right-of-way without trespass; licenses/permits supersede trespass claims | Held: No trespass for the conflict point where occupation was authorized by municipal right-of-way (Bello); but for the four points subject to licenses, termination can render continued occupation a trespass and relocation to new locations may also raise triable trespass issues — remanded for trial on those trespass claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Bello v. ABA Energy Corp., 121 Cal.App.4th 301 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (public right-of-way permits can authorize utility use that does not constitute trespass against underlying owner when Bello criteria met)
- Southern Cal. Gas Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 50 Cal.2d 713 (Cal. 1958) (common-law rule: utilities accepting franchises generally must relocate facilities at their own expense for proper governmental uses)
- Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., 51 Cal.2d 331 (Cal. 1958) (applies common-law relocation rule to public entities beyond municipalities)
- City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Gas & Elec. Co., 251 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1919) (franchise is property; taking or displacement of franchise may require compensation — governmental/proprietary distinction discussed)
- New Orleans Gaslight Co. v. Drainage Comm’n of New Orleans, 197 U.S. 453 (U.S. 1905) (police power/regulatory rationale supporting uncompensated relocation when necessary for public health and welfare)