Bernard Long; Margaret Long; Ann Long; Greg Houle; Susan Houle; Houle Inc.; Houle Inc. dba B&B Trucks and Parts; Mary Newell v. City of Rialto, et al
Published: Jan. 17, 1998 | Result Date: Oct. 21, 1997 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: SCV27138 – $2,492,340
Judge
Court
San Bernardino Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Deborah J. Fox
(Meyers Nave APC)
Experts
Plaintiff
Gregory Houle
(technical)
Jeffrey Donahue
(technical)
James M. Skorheim
(technical)
Defendant
Fred Masterman
(technical)
Glenn M. Desmond
(technical)
Ralph Hubbard
(technical)
Facts
The plaintiffs, Bernard and Margaret Long, conducted an automobile-dismantling yard and truck-parts business in the City of Rialto since the mid or late 1960s. Over the years, the Longs had developed a vehicle parts salvaging business, a retail business of selling new and used truck parts and a truck repair operation. Mr. Long also acquired and stored on the property vehicles which he considered to be of historical value. Over the years, the plaintiffs, Greg and Susan Houle, became involved in the business and purchased it from the Longs in July 1995. Meanwhile, the defendant City of Rialto tried to have the Longs clean up the appearance of the yard and obtain a permit for dismantling. The City apparently had no dispute with the retail auto parts portion of the business. Rather, the City attacked the auto-dismantling portion. Numerous administrative hearings, lawsuits and criminal prosecutions took place. In December 1994, the City's property management board ultimately recommended that the Longs' real and personal property be abated as a public nuisance for failing to have a dismantling permit. The City hired two companies to carry out the abatement and cleanup of the property. After the abatement, nothing remained on the Longs' property but the buildings, the contents of an enclosed building, and a block wall enclosing the property. The plaintiffs then sued the defendants for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
Settlement Discussions
Plaintiffs sought $3.1 million. Defendants offered $538,000.
Damages
The plaintiffs sought recovery for loss of personal property for $4 million; $2.5 million for loss of profits; $2,000 damage to historical vehicles and unspecified damages for emotional distress.
Result
Judgment was granted in favor of two individual defendants involved in the abatement, based on qualified immunity. The court found the City violated plaintiff's constitutional rights in the way the abatement was permitted to take place and by totally destroying by salvage or sale, the plaintiffs' personal property "without discrimination as to type or purpose." It was not necessary nor appropriate for the City to surrender all of plaintiff's real and personal property to its cleanup companys to "wantonly and discriminately wreak havoc on everything in sight" including equipment which related to the sales and services portion of the business. The court further found a lawful abatement did not permit the City to permit the selling of plaintiffs' historical vehicles at a private sales event nor to permit the plaintiffs to be demeaned and humiliated in the process. The court also ruled that the City failed to provide plaintiffs with adequate notice because it did not inform plaintiff it was going to sell and destroy plaintiff's personal property.
Poll
_________ (#s pls.)
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390