Louis Alfonso, et al. v. City of Agoura Hills
Published: May 18, 1996 | Result Date: Feb. 13, 1996 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: BC089778 – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Edward G. Burg
(Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP)
Craig M. Collins
(Blum Collins LLP)
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Lawrence D. Brown
(technical)
Donald Hauser
(technical)
Awtar Singh
(technical)
Defendant
Julius Kummerman
(technical)
Laurence N. Sommer
(technical)
Gregory P. Silver
(technical)
Thomas Slosson
(technical)
Hodge Gaines
(technical)
Bing C. Yen
(technical)
Facts
In February of 1993, a landslide damaged residential properties in Agoura Hills during rains. A 40-foot slope adjoining Calle Montecillo, a city roadway, collapsed and damaged private residences adjoining the roadway. The plaintiffs, six homeowners, sued the defendant, the city of Agoura Hills, contending that the slope was a public work and the roadway contributed to the slope failure. The city contended that the owners failed to mitigate their damages by refusing to let the city repair the slope. The city settled with three of the homeowners before trial for a total of $792,500; this settlement included city acquisition of two of the plaintiffs' houses. The city also settled its cross-complaints against the developer, grading contractor, soils engineer, civil engineer for the tract and the county before trial for a total of $362,500. At trial, the plaintiffs requested that the jury award damages to the three remaining homeowners as follows: plaintiffs, Alfonso, $385,300 (per the plaintiffs) and $485,300 (per the defendant); plaintiffs, Akhtars, $330,000 (per the plaintiffs) and $430,000 (per the defendant); and plaintiffs, Lanaros, $300,000 (per the plaintiffs) and $400,000 (per the defendant). The plaintiffs brought this action against the defendant city based on inverse condemnation, nuisance and dangerous condition of public property theories of recovery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs, Akhtars, made a settlement demand for $125,000 (per the plaintiffs) and $610,000 (per the defendant). The plaintiffs, Lanaros, made a settlement demand for $575,000 in November of 1994. The plaintiffs, Alfonsos made a settlement demand for $850,000 in November of 1994. The defendant made a settlement offer to the plaintiffs, Akhtars, of $75,000 (per the plaintiffs) and $87,500 (per the defendant) in January of 1996. The defendant made a settlement offer of $50,000 to the plaintiffs, Lanaros. In August of 1994, the defendant made a settlement offer of $340,000 for the house and lot without prejudice to the plaintiffs Alfonsos to pursue any and all claims against the city at trial including that their property was worth more that $340,000, for emotional distress, attorney's fees and costs.
Damages
The plaintiffs claimed loss of value of their properties and moving expenses.
Injuries
The plaintiffs alleged that they sustained property damage and emotional distress as a result of the incident.
Other Information
The verdict was reached approximately two years and five months after the case was filed. SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: Three settlement conferences were held in late 1994 and early 1995 before retired Supreme Court Judge Eagleson, resulting in settlement of the three homeowners' claims who did not go to trial and eventual settlement of the city's cross-complaints.
Deliberation
4 days
Poll
10-2 (dangerous condition); 9-3 (nuisance)
Length
5 weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390