Colombo

Moulton Niguel Water District v. Colombo

Bad Law
111 Cal. App. 4th 1210·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 1398·2003 Daily Journal DAR 10339·4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 519·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8299
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 10, 2003G030298California3,912 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rylaarsdam, J.

This dispute arises in an action brought by plaintiff Moulton Niguel Water District (district) to condemn a nonexclusive pipeline easement under land owned by defendants Ralph and Ida Colombo (owners). The jury awarded damages substantially in excess of district’s pretrial offer. Owners moved to recover their litigation expenses under Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410, subdivision (b) (all further statutory references are to this code), on the ground district’s pretrial offer was unreasonable. The court denied the motion; owners contend this constitutes error. They further maintain the denial of their motion was motivated by judicial bias. The record supports neither of these claims. The law requires the trial court to evaluate the evidence independently to determine the reasonableness of the pretrial offer. It did so. And substantial evidence supports its denial of the motion. Therefore, we affirm the order.

FACTS

District filed this condemnation action to acquire a “nonexclusive easement ... for underground water, reclaimed water and sewer pipelines and appurtenant facilities for transmission purposes ....” Owners’ answer, in part, contested district’s right to…

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.