In City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, No. B225083 (Apr. 12, 2011), the California Court of Appeal (2d District) held that the trial court erroneously entered summary judgment and awarded a property owner damages under an inverse condemnation theory against the city for inequitable precondemnation activities (aka “condemnation blight”). The owner showed that the city had been buying properties in the neighborhood, relocating the residents, demolishing the buildings and leaving the land vacant, and alleged that this was accomplished in order to make the city’s acquisition of his property easier.
The city conceded most of the facts (except the allegation of its intent) were correct, but the court concluded that in order to prove inequitable precondemnation activities, the city must have either instituted eminent domain proceedings, or be acting with the “firm intention” of doing so. Only then does the rule from Klopping v. City of Whittier, 8 Cal.3d 39 (1972) kick in, and the city becomes liable if it either delays instituting the condemnation, or commences and abandons condemnation proceedings:
As Klopping made clear, to assert a claim for inverse condemnation under its rationale, the plaintiff must establish first, that the public entity engaged in unreasonable activity, either by excessively delaying initiation of an eminent domain action or by other oppressive conduct; and second, that the offensive conduct was a precursor to the entity’s condemnation of the plaintiff’s property for a public purpose.
Slip op. at 17-18. The court continued:
In short, a claim for precondemnation damages under Klopping “is not akin to a court-created private right of action enabling property owners to collect damages whenever a [public entity] acts ‘unreasonably.'” (Redevelopment Agency of San Diego v. Mesdaq (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1135.) Rather, there must be a finding of “unreasonable precondemnation activity . . . before liability can be imposed on the basis of Klopping.” (Briggs v. State of California ex rel. Dept. Parks & Recreation (1979) 98 Cal.App.3d 190, 206.)
Slip op. at 19.
The court held that the property owner did not show sufficient facts to establish the claim, and concluded that the trial court should not have entered summary judgment in his favor.
City of Los Angeles v Superior Court, No B225082 (Cal Ct App Apr 12 2011)