This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
ADA
Fair Housing Act

Licking Enterprises Inc. v. City of San Jose, San Jose City Council, Ron Gonzales, Cindy Chavez, Pat Dando, Ken Yeager, Chuck Reed, Forrest Williams, Linda J. Le Zotte, Nora Campos, George Shirakawa Jr., David D. Cortese, John Diquisto

Published: Aug. 13, 2011 | Result Date: May 3, 2011 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: C0700735 Settlement –  $1,000,000

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Jivaka A.R. Candappa


Defendant

Clifford S. Greenberg
(Office of the San Jose City Attorney)


Experts

Plaintiff

Randy Sugarman
(technical)

Facts

Licking Enterprises Inc. owned and operated Life Choices Treatment Services Inc., a drug treatment facility in San Jose. Licking Enterprises was denied a rezoning permit by the city council after the rezoning application had already been approved by the city planning commission. It sued the city and council members alleging violations of the Federal Fair Housing Act and other violations.

The city indicated its intent to exercise eminent domain over the property after the lawsuit was filed.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that the permit was denied because of the city's proposed construction of a drug treatment facility. Licking Enterprises performed its due diligence which revealed that the city had no plans for the site. However, the city counsel, in voting to deny the application, claimed that the city had alternative uses for the property. Licking Enterprises claimed that the alternative uses were mere excuses to unlawfully block its proposed facility.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
The city contended that it had alternative uses for the property and the denial of the application was lawful.

Settlement Discussions

The parties agreed to settle the case with the city agreeing to purchase the property for $2.023 million, lease the property back to Licking Enterprise for $1 per month until 2015 and resolve its other claim for economic losses through alternative dispute resolution. However, the settlement agreement was never signed and the case was subsequently dismissed by Licking Enterprises' former counsel without Licking Enterprises' knowledge.

Result

Licking Enterprises retained current counsel in 2010. The city agreed to pay $1 million in economic damages for Licking Enterprises' lost income caused by the denial of the rezoning application and proposed taking. The city also agreed to purchase the property for $2.023 million and lease the property for $1 per month as previously agreed.


#122536

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390