In Dina v. The People ex rel. Department of Transportation, (— Cal.Rptr.3d —, 2007 WL 1599724, Cal.App. 2 Dist., June 5, 2007), a California Court of Appeal considered whether a trial court could resolve by motion the legal issue of liability in an inverse condemnation case. The Court of Appeal held that Code of Civil Procedure section 1260.040 permits a trial court to resolve by pre-trial motion the legal issue of liability in an inverse condemnation proceeding. This ruling confirms that public agencies can use the “early in limine motion” procedure of Section 1260.040 as an effective substitute for summary judgment motions in inverse condemnation cases.
Facts
Sharon Dina and David and Joanna Whiteley (collectively, “Homeowners”), own property in the City of La Verne. The California Department of Transportation constructed an extension of the I-210 Freeway in close proximity to Homeowners’ properties. The Homeowners claim that the extension resulted in increased air pollution, audible vibrations, and noise exceeding state and federal allowable levels, which they claim are causing damage to their properties.
Homeowners filed a lawsuit for inverse condemnation against the Department of Transportation (“Department”). The Department filed a motion to dismiss the inverse condemnation claim on the ground that the motion lacked merit because the Homeowners could not show that they “suffered any individualized or particularized detriment as a result of the freeway.” The Homeowners submitted evidence regarding increased noise levels and expert opinion that supported their claim of structural damage and increased air pollution. The Department presented evidence which countered the expert opinions submitted by Homeowners. After reviewing the evidence, the trial court granted Department’s motion to dismiss.
Decision
The Homeowners’ asserted on appeal that the trial court denied them their right to trial by granting the Department’s motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeal rejected this argument and held that Code of Civil Procedure 1260.040 authorized the trial court to resolve the entire action by pre-trial motion.
Code of Civil Procedure 1260.040 provides, in pertinent part, “If there is a dispute between plaintiff and defendant over an evidentiary or other legal issue affecting the determination of compensation, either party may move the court for a ruling on the issue. The motion shall be made not later than 60 days before commencement of trial on the issue of compensation. The motion shall be heard by the judge assigned for trial of the case.” Section 1260.040 is part of a comprehensive statutory “scheme designed to cover eminent domain proceedings.” However, the court concluded that it is reasonable to construe section 1260.040 to permit a trial court to adjudicate liability in an inverse condemnation action. The purpose of section 1260.040 is to “facilitate resolution of condemnation cases without trial.” Given section 1260.040’s purpose, the court concluded that “it would be contrary to legislative intent not to permit a party to move for a ruling on the legal issue of liability in an inverse condemnation proceeding.”
The right to a jury trial in an inverse condemnation action is limited to the question of damages, or in other words, how much compensation should be awarded. All other issues are reserved for the court. The Homeowners were not entitled to a jury trial because they were not entitled to any compensation given the trial court’s resolution of the issue of legal liability in favor of the Department.
The trial court also did not err in failing to provide the Homeowners with a bench trial. The trial court allowed both parties to present evidence in support of their positions. The trial court then determined the issue of legal liability in the context of the Department’s pre-trial motion to dismiss. The Court of Appeal held that the trial court could properly determine the issue of legal liability in this manner under section 1260.040. It further held that the trial court properly dismissed the Homeowners’ lawsuit because they failed to show that their properties “suffered a direct, substantial and peculiar burden from the I-210 Freeway.”
Legal Significance
In most types of cases, liability issues involving disputed facts can only be resolved before trial through the use of motions for summary judgment. A few years ago, the state legislature made summary judgment motions more difficult to win and more time consuming to make. This new case gives public entities an effective substitute for summary judgment motions in inverse condemnation cases where liability is contested.