Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV24633, Date: 2025-02-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV24633    Hearing Date: February 13, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s motion for an order granting it prejudgment possession is GRANTED.

            On 9/20/2024, Plaintiff the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG or Plaintiff) filed an eminent domain claim against Per Partners Limited, L.P., and Alfonso Tires & Repairs, Inc. (Defendant).

            On 10/22/02024, Plaintiff moved for prejudgment possession and certification of tax information.

Factual Background

            Plaintiff is in the process of acquiring properties for public right of way and the construction and maintenance of the proposed Montebello Boulevard Grade Separation Project, in Los Angeles County, City of Montebello as part of the SGVCOG Alameda Corridor-East Construction Project (Project).

For the Project, Plaintiff contends that it requires the acquisition of two temporary construction easements identified in the operative Complaint (Easements). The Easements are located on a larger parcel located at 707 W. Olympic Boulevard, Montebello, CA, 90640, with a Los Angeles County Assessor’s parcel number 6349-015-013 (Larger Parcel) which is owned by defendant PER PARTNERS LIMITED, L.P., and is occupied by defendant ALFONSO TIRES & REPAIRS, INC. (collectively Defendants).

Discussion

            Plaintiff seeks to take possession of the Easements thirty days after service of this Court’s order for possession pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.450(b)[1].

Article 1, Section 19 of the California Constitution provides that “[p]rivate property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.  The Legislature may provide for possession by the condemnor following commencement of eminent domain proceedings upon deposit in court and prompt release to the owner of money determined by the court to be the probable amount of just compensation.”  Cal. Const. art. I § 19.  Pursuant to CCP § 1255.410, a plaintiff “may move the court for an order for possession… demonstrating that the plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain” and that the plaintiff has deposited with the court the probable amount of compensation.  (CCP § 1255.410(a).) 

“If the motion is opposed by a defendant or occupant within 30 days of service, the court may make an order for possession of the property upon consideration of the relevant facts and any opposition, and upon completion of a hearing on the motion, if the court finds each of the following: 

(A) The plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain. 

(B) The plaintiff has deposited pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 1255.010) an amount that satisfies the requirements of that article. 

(C) There is an overriding need for the plaintiff to possess the property prior to the issuance of final judgment in the case, and the plaintiff will suffer a substantial hardship if the application for possession is denied or limited. 

(D) The hardship that the plaintiff will suffer if possession is denied or limited outweighs any hardship on the defendant or occupant that would be caused by the granting of the order of possession.” (CCP § 1255.410(d)(2).) 

CCP §§ 1245.250 and 1240.030 provide that a Resolution of Necessity properly adopted by the condemning agency conclusively establishes that the agency is entitled to exercise the power of eminent domain.   

On September 19, 2024, Plaintiff adopted a Resolution of Necessity. (Creter Decl. ¶ 3-7.) The temporary construction easement was further valued at $369,000 which was deposited with the state treasurer. (Notice of Deposit.) Finally, Plaintiff submits the declaration of Carrie Inciong, Plaintiff’s Senior Project Manager for the Monetbello Boulevard Grade Separation Project. She explains the purpose and necessity of the Project and easement. (Inciong Decl. ¶¶ 15-22.) 

As such, Plaintiff has satisfied the first two elements.

In opposition, Defendant Alfonso Tires (Defendant) argues that Plaintiff cannot show an overriding need for immediate possession, or overriding hardship.

To show an overriding need for immediate possession, Ms. Inciong’s declaration describes how the Easements are necessary for the Project’s “critical path.” Ms. Inciong contends that delay will cause the Montebello community to continue to suffer from traffic delays and delays to emergency services, and could imperil the funding of the Project.

In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has long known of the need to acquire this Property—as evidenced by a 2019 eminent domain complaint and prejudgment possession of a property one block north of the property here—and thus any immediate need is self-created. Yet, while this tends to show that Plaintiff could have or should have moved for possession earlier, it does not actually dispute that there is an overriding need for possession to complete the project.

As for hardship, Plaintiff argues that hardship to Defendant will be minimal because while it will permanently eliminate the Montebello Blvd. driveway, “…construction of the Project will not require the Defendants to relocate or prevent them from continuing to use the Larger Parcel.” (Inciong Decl. ¶15, lines 8-10.)

 In opposition, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s closing of the Montebello Boulevard driveway and restricting access to one driveway on Olympic Boulevard will render the Subject Property unusable for its business. Thus, Plaintiff’s taking and Project will displace Alfonso Tires and force it to relocate. (Herrera Decl. ¶ 7.)

However, the Court finds Defendant’s explanation inadequate as to why its limitation to one driveway, instead of two, will require its relocation. Moreover, by Defendant’s own admission, it has been aware of the ongoing construction and the eventual need for Plaintiff to possess this Property since 2019. As such, Defendant has had ample notice of the eventual need to relocate. Finally, in reply, Plaintiff submitted evidence that Alfonso Tires’ current use of the Montebello Driveway is actually illegal, as the only way for large trailer trucks to utilize this driveway is to cross a pair of double solid yellow lines in the middle of the street within feet from an active railroad line. (Reply Inciong Decl., ¶¶ 3-5, Exs. G & H; see Cal. Vehicle Code 21651 [two sets of solid double yellow lines spaced two or more feet apart are considered a barrier and it is a misdemeanor to drive across it].) As such, Defendant’s contention that it will be deprived a current illegal use of a driveway while still having legal use of another driveway during and after project construction is insufficient to weigh the balance of hardship in its favor. 

As such, the Court finds the hardship to Plaintiff outweighs the hardship to Defendant if prejudgment possession is denied.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an order granting it prejudgment possession is granted.  

It is so ordered.

Dated:  February    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.