Acosta

People Ex Rel. Department of Transportation v. Acosta

Good Law
100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 669·178 Cal. App. 4th 762·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1712
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 26, 2009C059064California4,582 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hull, J.

In this eminent domain proceeding, defendants Mercedes Acosta and Hammer 99, Inc. (hereafter collectively Acosta), the operator of a gas station and minimart on a portion of the condemned property whose franchise was terminated as a result of the condemnation, sought an award of damages for lost goodwill pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1263.510. (Unspecified section references that follow are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) Plaintiff Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the condemner, asserted section 1263.510 is preempted by the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) ( 15 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq.), which limits a franchisee’s recovery of goodwill to an allocation of any goodwill recovered by the franchisor.

After the trial court denied Caltrans’s motion for summary adjudication on the goodwill claim and its motion in limine to exclude evidence of goodwill damages, the parties entered into a stipulation for entry of judgment in the amount of $704,500. The court thereafter entered judgment accordingly and awarded Acosta litigation expenses pursuant to section 1250.410.

Caltrans appeals both the judgment and the order awarding litigation expenses. Acosta…

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.