Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 21STCV45480, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV45480 Hearing Date: August 17, 2023 Dept: 72
Date: 8/17/23
Case No.: 21STCV45480
Case Name: People
of the State of California, Acting by and through the Department of
Transportation v. Godecka
The
Court GRANTS the State’s requests to make an order of possession, effective
thirty days after service of the order.
“In the standard
eminent domain proceeding, the condemning entity does not take possession and
title until after judgment and full payment of just compensation. (Medical
Acquisition Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 313, 323,
228 Cal.Rptr.3d 654.) As an alternative to the standard proceeding, the
California Constitution authorized the Legislature to ‘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. 1, §
19, subd. (a).) The Legislature exercised this authority by enacting section 1255.410 and
related provisions that create the “quick-take” procedure that is the subject
of this writ proceeding. (Medical Acquisition Co., Inc., supra, at p.
323, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 654; Redevelopment Agency of San Diego v. Mesdaq
(2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1111, 1121–1122, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 372 [explaining quick
take procedures], disapproved on another ground in Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Alameda Produce Market, LLC
(2011) 52 Cal.4th 1100, 1111, fn. 7, 133 Cal.Rptr.3d 738, 264 P.3d 579.)” (Robinson
v. Superior Court of Kern County (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1163-1164.)
“Subdivision (a) of
section 1255.410 states
that, after the complaint is filed, ‘the plaintiff may move the court for an
order for possession under this article, demonstrating that the plaintiff is
entitled to take the property by eminent domain and has deposited pursuant to
Article 1 (commencing with Section 1255.010) an amount that satisfies the
requirements of that article.’ The subdivision also requires the motion to
contain certain information, including a notice that the defendant may file a
written opposition within 30 days from the date of service. (See 7 Miller &
Starr, Cal. Real Estate (4th ed. 2022) Eminent Domain, § 24:55, pp. 24-152 to
24-155 [motion for order of prejudgment possession]; 8 Witkin, Summary of Cal.
Law (11th ed. 2017) Constitutional Law, § 1353, p. 945 [same]; 29 Cal.Jur.3d
(2019) Eminent Domain, § 200, pp. 334-335 [same].)” (Robinson, supra,
88 Cal.App.5th at 1164.)
“The timely filing
of an opposition affects the trial court's review of the motion. Subdivision
(d)(1) of section 1255.410, states:
‘If the motion is not opposed within 30 days of service on each defendant and
occupant of the property, the court shall make an order for possession
of the property if the court finds each of the following: [¶] (A) The
plaintiff is entitled to take the property by eminent domain. [¶] (B) The
plaintiff deposited pursuant to Article 1 (commencing with Section 1255.010) an
amount that satisfies the requirements of that article.’ (Italics added.) (Robinson,
supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at 1164.)
Here, no opposition has been
filed. Thus, the Court need only
determine whether the State is entitled to acquire the property by eminent
domain and whether the State has deposited with the State Treasury the probable
amount of compensation, based on an appraisal, that will be awarded in the
proceeding.
The
Parcels at issue here consist of fee simple interest acquisitions containing
34,526 square feet, 20,987 square feet of which are fully encumbered by a
roadway easement. (Francis Decl. ¶ 5.)
On October 13, 2021, the Commission passed and adopted Resolution of Necessity
No. C-22076, declaring that the Parcels are necessary for State Highway
purposes. (Farr Decl., ¶ 7, Exhib. A.) A resolution of necessity adopted by the
governing body of a public entity is sufficient to satisfy the first element
that the State is entitled to acquire the property by eminent domain.
As
to the second element, on December 23, 2021, the State deposited with the State
Treasury the sum of $14,100, representing the probable amount of compensation
for the acquisition of the Parcels. (Declaration of Michelle B. Kutukian, ¶ 3,
Exhib. B.) The Notice of Deposit for said amount was filed on February 1, 2022.
Attached to the Notice of Deposit was a Declaration Regarding Summary of the
Basis for the Appraisal made by Louis M. Valle, a Senior Right of Way Agent.
Attached to the Declaration of Louis M. Valle was the Appraisal Summary
Statement that outlines the basis for the State’s determination of the probable
amount of just compensation that would be awarded in this proceeding for the
acquisition of the Parcels. The Court finds this sufficient to satisfy the
second requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.410.