Meyer

State of California v. Meyer

Good Law
174 Cal. App. 3d 1061·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2800·220 Cal. Rptr. 884
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 25, 1985B005540California4,242 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stone, J.

May a landowner, defendant in eminent domain proceedings, properly allege “delay damages” for the first time in a memorandum of costs after the public entity condemner has filed an abandonment of the eminent domain action? He may not. Appellants landowners appeal from an order taxing costs made after judgment of dismissal upon the state’s abandonment of eminent domain proceedings. They contend the trial court erred in: (1) disallowing delay damages alleged for the first time in the cost bill; (2) awarding inadequate attorneys’ fees due to failure to apply a “lodestar multiplier”; (3) disallowing reimbursement of witness fees, trial and messenger expenses; and (4) refusing landowners limited postabandonment discovery.

We find no error in the court’s ruling concerning delay damages, application of the “lodestar multiplier,” or discovery, but remand the issue of reasonable attorneys’ fees, witness and messenger expenses for clarification and redetermination, if necessary, consistent with our opinion. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Facts

Appellants landowners, co-owners of parcels No. 4156 and No. 4157, decided in 1971 to develop their beachfront properties for joint use…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.