Notable Trial Outcomes and Settlements
413 Acre Take Settles for $10,950,000
Background: A levee district took a 413.34 acres from a 1,221.36 acre orchard and row crop property in Yuba County, California. Initially, the owner’s appraisers valued the take at $11,550,000, and determined the loss of business goodwill incurred by the orchard was $1,184,000. The government valued the take at a little over $8,000,000 and offered nothing for the loss of business goodwill.
Result: DNLC succeeded in obtaining a settlement for the landowners of $10 million for the take alone, and an additional $500,000 for the loss of business goodwill, plus over $400,000 in interest and costs.
56 Acre Take Leads to Jury Verdict of $1.26 Million
Background: The government took 56.29 acres from a 298.08 acre orchard and row crop property. The case went to a jury trial, with the owner’s appraiser valuing the take at $1,690,000 and the government’s appraiser countering with $725,900.
Result: DNLC obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $1,266,525 our client.
99.65 Acre Take Leads to Jury Verdict of $2,883,962, Plus Litigation Expenses
Background: The government took 99.65 acres from a 105 acre property. The owner’s appraiser valued the take at $3,495,000, and the government’s appraiser believed the owner should be paid $1,852,220. The landowner’s final demand was for $2,750,000 and the government made a final offer of $2,250,000. The case proceeded to a jury trial.
Result: DNLC obtained a jury verdict in the amount of $2,883,962—an amount higher than the client’s final demand. In addition, the judge ordered the government to pay $134,771.82 for our client’s attorney’s and expert’s fees.
1.72 Acre Take of Apartment Complex Settles for $1.75 Million
Background: For a take of a 1.72 acre apartment complex property, the property owners were offered $1,425,000.
Result: Prior to formal action and through negotiation by DNLC with the agency, our client reached a settlement and were paid $1,755,333.33.
6.95 Acre Take of Entire Property Settles for $1.93 Million
Background: A 6.95 acre unimproved property in Sacramento was taken in full for a detention basin. The landowner’s appraiser valued the take at $2,260,000, while the government’s appraiser valued the property at $1,515,000.
Result: DNLC succeeded in obtaining a settlement for the landowners of $1,928,323.
0.024 Acre Take of Tahoe Lakefront Property Settles for $100,000
Background: A take of 1,039 square feet, or 0.024 acres, of a lakefront parcel in Tahoe for a drainage easement resulted in a pre-possession deposit of $47,000.
Result: Prior to undertaking any litigation, DNLC obtained a settlement for the landowners of $100,000.
400+ Acre Take Settles for $5.025 Million
Background: The government took 400+ acres of an approximately 800 acre orchard and home site. Our appraiser valued the take at $5,866,000, and the government’s appraiser valued it at $3,495,153.
Result: DNLC succeeded in obtaining a settlement for the landowners of $5,025,000.
A Take of a Neighborhood Market Property Settles for $476,385
Background: The government agency took a small family owned neighborhood market. The government offered $316,000.
Result: After hiring DNLC, our client obtained over $476,000.
Inverse Condemnation of 2.0 Acres Settles for $403,000
Background: The government took 2.0 acres of a 22.87 acre home site for a levee setback, but failed to pay the landowners just compensation prior to the take. The agency valued the take at $101,000 but failed to deposit that amount with the landowners.
Result: DNLC succeeded in obtaining a settlement for the landowners of $403,000.
Government Offers $7,800; Ends Up Paying $260,000
Background: The government initially offered to pay our client $7,800 to take a 2 acre easement over a portion of the client’s 121 acre property. The appraiser for our client believed the owners should be paid on of $362,000. The case went to trial on a legal issue regarding dedication requirements that affected the appraisers’ opinions. DNLC argued that the government’s appraiser improperly valued the take.
Result: DNLC won on both legal issues before the court, which led to the agency settling with the landowners for $260,000—an amount 33 times the original $7,800 offer.
Successful Outcomes on Appeals and Writs
- San Joaquin Regional Transit District v. Superior Court of San Joaquin County (2020) 59 Cal.App.5th 39 (eminent domain; published; favorable determination of abandoning condemnor’s liability for statutory damages after bench trial affirmed on appeal)
- In re Parks (9th Cir. 2020) 809 Fed.Appx. 379 (bankruptcy; favorable memorandum decision affirming Bankruptcy Appellate Panel judgment affirming discharge order)
- In re Parks (B.A.P. 9th Cir., Feb. 11, 2019, No. BAP EC-18-1088-LBS) 2019 WL 546024, aff’d (9th Cir. 2020) 809 Fed.Appx. 379 (bankruptcy; favorable memorandum decision affirming discharge order)
- In re Lind (B.A.P. 9th Cir., July 8, 2019, No. 2:16-BK-27672) 2019 WL 2950167 (bankruptcy; unpublished; favorable affirmance of statutory finding of sale by trustee made in good faith and dismissal of remainder of appeal by debtor as statutorily moot)
- Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency v. Souza (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 7, 2017, No. C074052) 2017 WL 3910228 (eminent domain; unpublished; favorable jury determination of the amount of just compensation due client and post-trial award of statutory attorney’s fees both affirmed)
- In re Ahrens (B.A.P. 9th Cir., Oct. 27, 2016, No. 14-BK-29813-MSM) 2016 WL 6427279 (bankruptcy; unpublished; favorable memorandum decision affirming bankruptcy court claim estimate and statutory fee award)
- Bos v. Board of Trustees (9th Cir. 2015) 795 F.3d 1006 (bankruptcy; published; favorable opinion reversing judgment denying client’s discharge and remanding with instructions to remand to bankruptcy court with instructions to discharge debt)
- Paterno v. State of California (2003) 113 Cal.App. 4th 998
- Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App. 4th 68
- People ex rel Dept. of Transportation v. Gardella Square (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 559
- Akins v. State of California (1998) 61 Cal.App. 4th 1
- Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control Dist. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 550
- Furey v. City of Sacramento (1979) 24 Cal.3d 862
- Galli v. State of California (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 662
- Jones v. People ex rel. Dept. of Transportation (1978) 22 Cal.3d 144
- Parking Authority v. Nicovich (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 420
- State ex rel. State Public Works Bd. v. Covich (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 663
- People by and through Dept. of Public Works v. Auburn Ski Club (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 781
- People by and through Dept. of Public Works v. Lillard (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 368
- Beckley v. State Reclamation Bd. (1962) 205 Cal.App.2d 734
- Clement v. State Reclamation Bd., Sacramento San Joaquin Drainage Dist. (1950) 35 Cal.2d 628