Mulligan, et al. v. City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Published: May 3, 2001 | Result Date: Feb. 16, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 740099 Verdict – $1,262,500
Judge
Court
Orange Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Experts
Plaintiff
Noa Singler
(technical)
James R. Himes
(technical)
Defendant
Thomas E. Pastore
(technical)
Daniel Poyourow
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiffs Gary Mulligan and Loren Johnson own a parcel of improved real property located at 117 Main Street in
downtown Huntington Beach. The property was occupied by plaintiff Mulligan & Johnson Inc. conducting a
nightclub/bar business known as Perqs.
The property is located within a project for the redevelopment of the downtown Huntington Beach pier area
known as the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project. The project was adopted by the defendant in 1982.
Since late 1984 and continuing to the present, the defendant has engaged various real estate developers in
various redevelopment agreements in an effort to redevelop a two-block area of the project area, including the
plaintiffsÆ property.
In October 1989, the defendant took official action announcing its intent to condemn the subject property for its
project. The agency did not commence an eminent domain action to acquire the property, though it continued
official actions indicating an intent to condemn or otherwise acquire the plaintiffsÆ property for its
redevelopment project (continuing to the present).
In December 1999, a legal issue trial was conducted by the court, Hon. Tully H. Seymour, judge presiding
without jury, to determine whether the plaintiffs were entitled to present their inverse condemnation claims for
compensation to the jury.
After a three-week trial, judge Seymour issued a Statement of Decision determining, among other things, that
the evidence established that the agencyÆs conduct constituted an announcement of intent to condemn the
plaintiffsÆ property that was legally sufficient to trigger liability against the defendant for inverse condemnation
damages commencing Oct. 26, 1989.
The court determined that damages to the subject property and business had occurred as a result of the
agencyÆs unreasonable delay in commencing an eminent domain action after announcing its intent to condemn
and other unreasonable pre-condemnation conduct.
The court determined that the plaintiff real property owners were entitled to recover compensation for loss of
rental income and impairment of market value of the real property after July 1996, and plaintiff Perqs was
entitled to recover compensation for loss of business goodwill and business income from Oct. 26, 1989 to
present.
Settlement Discussions
At a mandatory settlement conference on Nov. 17, 2000, plaintiffs property and business owners offered to settle the case for $900,000 plus statutory litigation expenses to be determined by the court pursuant to C.C.P. Section 1036. The defendant made an oral offer of $300,000, all inclusive, including compensation and litigation expenses.
Length
four weeks
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390