Temple City Redevelopment Agency v. Bayside Drive Limited Partnership

Good Law
146 Cal. App. 4th 1555·2007 Cal. App. LEXIS 99·2007 Daily Journal DAR 1207·53 Cal. Rptr. 3d 728·2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 970
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 25, 2007Nos. B189736, B189737California2,434 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Vogel, J.

*1558 Opinion

Code of Civil Procedure section 1268.610, subdivision (a)(1), provides for an award of litigation expenses to the defendant in an eminent domain action “whenever [t]he proceeding is wholly or partly dismissed for any reason” 1 (Italics added.) The question on this appeal is whether “for any reason” means what it says or whether, as the trial court found, it means for any reason except the sequence of events that occurred here—defendant was dismissed not because plaintiff abandoned the proceedings but because defendant sold the property while the action was pending. We find nothing ambiguous about the statute and conclude it must be given its plain meaning. We reverse.

FACTS

The relevant facts are undisputed. In November 2004, the Temple City Redevelopment Agency filed two eminent domain complaints, one to acquire property owned by Bayside Drive Limited Partnership, the other to obtain property owned by Pi Yun Hou Wang. Because Bayside owned an easement interest in Wang’s property, Bayside was named as a defendant in both complaints. In December, the agency deposited $1.25 million as the probable amount of compensation for the Bayside property (plus more for Wang’s…

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.