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.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Inverse Condemnation

Land Lot 1, LLC v. City of Bakersfield

Published: Sep. 24, 2016 | Result Date: Feb. 12, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: S-1500-CV-263357 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Kern Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

C. Russell Georgeson
(Georgeson & Belardinelli)


Defendant

Daniel T. Clifford
(Clifford & Brown)

Arnold J. Anchordoquy
(Clifford & Brown)


Facts

Plaintiff owned approximately 40 acres of undeveloped land in Bakersfield that was being used as a sand quarry or borrow pit. It entered into a contract for the exchange of real property with the City of Bakersfield in which plaintiff was to fill and grade the pit on the property and put it in farmable condition. After plaintiff performed the grading, the city refused to complete escrow and complete the exchange.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended that it performed the grading in accordance with the grading plan but that the city failed to perform its obligations under the contract and complete the exchange.

Plaintiff sued the city for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief, specific performance, inverse condemnation, and violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contended that the contract between the parties contained language permitting the city the right to request additional grading if the work was not performed to its satisfaction, and that in this case plaintiff failed to perform the work in accordance with its instructions.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff made a $10 million demand and the defense made a CCP Section 998 offer for $25,000.

Result

The jury returned a defense verdict.

Other Information

FILING DATE: March 21, 2008.


#125161

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

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