20 Cal.App.5th 1156
Cal. Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiffs own four properties on the east side of I-5 in San Clemente; CalTrans and OCTA (Agencies) built a sound wall on the west side of I-5, including a Paraglass (transparent) segment opposite Plaintiffs’ homes.
- Plaintiffs alleged the wall increased noise, dust, glare, obstructed views, interfered with enjoyment, and reduced property values, asserting inverse condemnation and nuisance claims.
- Agencies relied on Code Civ. Proc. § 1260.040 (a statute enacted in the Eminent Domain Law) and moved pretrial to dismiss liability and nuisance claims; they also asserted statutory immunities for the nuisance claim.
- The trial court granted the Agencies’ motions, concluding Plaintiffs’ injuries were not peculiar to their properties and that statutory immunities applied.
- On appeal, the Agencies conceded § 1260.040 is textually part of the Eminent Domain Law; the court considered whether that statute authorizes pretrial, case-dispositive motions resolving liability in inverse condemnation and related nuisance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Code Civ. Proc. § 1260.040 authorizes a pretrial, case-dispositive motion resolving takings liability in inverse condemnation actions | § 1260.040 should not apply because it governs eminent domain (compensation), not inverse condemnation (liability) | § 1260.040 may be “imported” into inverse condemnation to decide liability early and promote settlement; Dina supports that use | Reversed Dina: § 1260.040 is limited to legal/evidentiary issues affecting compensation in eminent domain; it does not authorize a novel pretrial dispositive procedure to decide liability in inverse condemnation actions |
| Whether § 1260.040 can be used to adjudicate companion causes of action (e.g., nuisance) pretrial | Plaintiffs argued nuisance claims entitle them to a jury trial and cannot be disposed of by a § 1260.040 in limine motion absent summary judgment | Agencies argued § 1260.040 allows dismissal of related claims as affecting compensation/liability | Court held § 1260.040 does not authorize pretrial adjudication/dismissal of companion claims; plaintiff is entitled to jury trial on nuisance absent summary judgment or other authorized procedure |
| Whether the legislative history and statutory scheme support applying § 1260.040 to liability issues in inverse condemnation | § 1260.040’s legislative history and placement in Eminent Domain Law show focus on resolving compensation questions pretrial | Agencies argued policy favoring settlement and cross-pollination with eminent domain justify broader use | Court relied on text, history, and purpose: statute was enacted to resolve valuation/compensation issues and expressly supplements other procedures; legislative framework already addresses liability where intended, so expanding § 1260.040 would improperly create a new dispositive mechanism |
| Whether Dina v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transp. correctly construed § 1260.040 to permit pretrial adjudication of liability | Plaintiffs argued Dina was wrongly decided and should not be followed | Agencies relied on Dina to support pretrial liability adjudication | Court declined to follow Dina, distinguishing its reasoning and concluding Dina misapplied § 1260.040; reversed judgment and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Dina v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transp., 151 Cal.App.4th 1029 (Cal. Ct. App.) (held § 1260.040 could be used to adjudicate liability in inverse condemnation; court here declines to follow)
- Boxer v. City of Beverly Hills, 246 Cal.App.4th 1212 (Cal. Ct. App.) (describes elements for inverse condemnation and differences from eminent domain)
- Amtower v. Photon Dynamics, Inc., 158 Cal.App.4th 1582 (Cal. Ct. App.) (criticizes use of in limine motions to dispose of causes of action)
- City of Perris v. Stamper, 1 Cal.5th 576 (Cal. 2016) (permits pretrial resolution of legal questions that affect the type of compensation in eminent domain)
- Varjabedian v. Madera, 20 Cal.3d 285 (Cal. 1977) (articulates formulation for intangible takings requiring burden that is direct, substantial, and peculiar)
- Oliver v. AT&T Wireless Services, 76 Cal.App.4th 521 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses tangible vs. intangible invasions and burden requirement)
- Chhour v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 46 Cal.App.4th 273 (Cal. Ct. App.) (notes Eminent Domain Law was intended to supply rules only for eminent domain proceedings)