Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Los Angeles County Transportation Commission Southern California Regional Rail Authority

57 F.3d 1078 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION; Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Defendants-Appellees. No. 93-56261. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 12, 1995. Decided June 5, 1995. 1 Before: HALL and LEAVY, Circuit Judges, and HOGAN, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 In this diversity action, Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (Sprint), appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) in Sprint's inverse condemnation action seeking $367,500 in unreimbursed costs incurred by Sprint when it was forced to relocate its fiber optics cable to accommodate rail line improvements undertaken by LACTC as part of a public mass transit project. Sprint argues that, if unreimbursed, it would bear the cost of a public improvement that should be spread…