Facts

The Aminpour brothers, King and Auri, came to America in the summer of 1978. They were young boys from Iran visiting Disneyland and the family decided to remain. They stayed in America and eventually moved to San Diego to join the large Persian community there.

The Aminpour family leased the Gateway Inn property in 1989. They moved into the manager's residence and began to operate the motel and parking on the property as the family’s primary income. The Gateway is located very near to the Mexico/United States border in San Ysidro. It is the closest motel to that border. The motel also has over one hundred parking spaces that it rents to drivers who wish to park and walk across the border to Tijuana.

When the Aminpours took over the property, it suffered from significant crime problems. Immediately after leasing the property, the Aminpours, in cooperation with the assistance of law enforcement, cleansed their property of that activity and diligently prevented additional criminal activity. They additionally made the property available to law enforcement for the purpose of monitoring other properties for criminal activity. The police found this property particularly susceptible for this use due to its elevated nature and its two front easy entrances and exits.

King and Auri's parents were separated in the early 1990s and their father left the family. At that time, the boys were in college, having tested out of high school and begun college in their early teens. Their mother took over management of the motel and parking operation while the boys finished school. Unfortunately, however, ovarian cancer necessitated surgery and treatment in 1992 and the boys were left to manage the operation themselves.

The business operated well and in 1996 the Aminpours were able to purchase the property from the landlord. They believed that it was a good investment due to its location and the significant potential for development given the wide street frontage of the property. They put time, money, and effort into making the property safe and attractive to the public so that they could maximize the revenues while they saved for the future. They worked with law enforcement, both federal and city, to help make both their property and neighboring properties safe from criminal activity and were successful in doing so.

In the early 2000s, the Aminpours found out that the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) had decided to move the local trolley, which previously ran down the middle of the road, to the east side of San Ysidro Boulevard, smack against their property. Prior plans had shown the trolley moved to the west side – farther from the Gateway. The Aminpours vigorously opposed this move, pointing out to the City the severe detriment to their property resulting from the blocked access and constant bells and whistles. MTDB ignored those concerns and proceeded to build the project on the east side of the road, essentially boxing the Gateway Inn in with the tracks.

Immediately upon this construction, the Gateway business plummeted. No one who stayed at the motel wished to return. Few were willing to fight the crossing arms and traffic to get into the parking lot. The revenues were drastically reduced. Suddenly, the business that had previously supported the family and its other interests was in need of support itself. The Aminpours filed this lawsuit for inverse condemnation against MTDB, alleging that the project had effected a "taking" or condemnation of their property.

In January 2005, the Court, without a jury, heard the liability trial in the case.

After taking evidence and witnesses, the judge, the Honorable William Cannon, ruled that the project and the noise and vibration, as well as the access blockage, had damaged the property and that MTDB was liable for the damages caused thereby. In his ruling, he stated that had MTDB tried to cause damage, it could not have done a better job. The case was therefore set for trial on the valuation of damages for January 2007 in front of a jury.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs contended that defendant's project caused an effective taking of their property due to the noise, vibration, and loss of access.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defense at the damages trial was that there was no damage resulting from the project because the highest and best use of the property was 100 percent parking and a parking use would not be impacted by noise and vibration.

Damages

The damages were the difference between the value of the property in the "before" condition and the "after" condition. Plaintiffs alleged that the value "before" was $6 million and that the value "after" was $1 million at the most. Defendant contended that there was no lost value.

Result

Jury verdict for $3 million. Plaintiffs are also, by law, entitled to fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.

Deliberation

4.5 hours

Length

10 days