LA Co. M.T.A. v. Alameda Produce Market 10/6/10 CA2/4

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » California » Court of Appeal » 2010 » LA Co. M.T.A. v. Alameda Produce Market 10/6/10 CA2/4

State: California

Court: 1st District Court of Appeal 1st District Court of Appeal

Docket No: B212643

Case Date: 12/21/2010

Preview:Filed 10/6/10 Los Angeles County Met. Transp. Auth. v. Alameda Produce Market CA2/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ALAMEDA PRODUCE MARKET, LLC, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

B212643 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC313010)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, James R. Dunn, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Jones Day, Elwood Lui, Brian M. Hoffstadt, and Brian D. Hershman; Robert E. Kalunian, Acting County Counsel, Charles M. Safer, Assistant County Counsel, and Joyce L. Chang, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Oliver, Sandifer & Murphy, Connie Cooke Sandifer, and Cynthia C. Marian for Defendant and Respondent Alameda Produce Market, LLC. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent American Apparel.

Plaintiff Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) appeals from the order dismissing its eminent domain complaint. MTA contends that the order of dismissal must be reversed because neither defendant had standing to challenge the taking of the property. MTA argues that defendant Alameda Produce Market, Inc. (APMI), which owned the property, statutorily waived all claims and defenses other than a claim for greater compensation under Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.260,1 and that defendant American Apparel, Inc., which used the property for overflow employee parking, had no legal or equitable interest in the property. We conclude that MTA is correct on both points. Accordingly, we reverse the order of dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

BACKGROUND

In 1996, the federal court issued a consent decree that required MTA to improve the quality of bus service in Los Angeles. In January 2004, the federal court ordered MTA to place an additional 145 buses in service by December 2004. Because its existing facilities were insufficient to accommodate the additional buses and employees necessitated by the order, MTA decided to expand its downtown Los Angeles Division I facility by acquiring APMIs nearby property, which consists of "approximately 115,000 square feet of vacant and undeveloped contiguous parcels generally located at 1345 East 7th Street in the City of Los Angeles" (the property). According to MTAs Tim Lindholm, the property is a "key component" of the Division I expansion project. On March 25, 2004, MTAs governing board adopted a resolution of necessity that authorized the taking of the property for the Division I expansion project. On April 1,
1

All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 1255.260 provides: "If any portion of the money deposited pursuant to this chapter is withdrawn, the receipt of any such money shall constitute a waiver by operation of law of all claims and defenses in favor of the persons receiving such payment except a claim for greater compensation."

2

2004, MTA filed the instant complaint against APMI2 (erroneously sued as Alameda North Parking, Inc.) to acquire the property by eminent domain. MTA utilized the quicktake procedure by depositing $6.3 million as the probable amount of compensation and filing a motion for immediate possession of the property. (See

Download LA Co. M.T.A. v. Alameda Produce Market 10/6/10 CA2/4.pdf