Legal News

Case Summaries

Property Law & Real Estate

[02/06] Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. US
In a suit brought by the former operator of a resort facility on federal land, seeking compensation from the United States for facilities that were allegedly retained and used by the Bureau of Land Management or by the resort operator's successor, the Court of Federal Claims' dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim is affirmed, where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding that the issues were identical to those in another case, and thus issue preclusion did not apply; but 2) the United States did not require the retention of the facilities under Public Law 96-375, so they remained the property of the resort operator and were abandoned.

[01/27] Matter of Meruelo Maddux Properties, Inc.
In Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings involving the question whether the debtor was subject to the single asset real estate provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the district court's holding that the single asset real estate provisions applied is affirmed, where: 1) the debtor, which existed solely to operate a 92-unit apartment complex, could be characterized as a single asset real estate debtor under the Bankruptcy Code; 2) the plain language of the Code gives no basis for a "whole business enterprise" exception to single asset real estate debtor status that would allow the court to consider parent corporation and sister subsidiaries; and 3) the district court did not err in its approach to granting relief from the automatic stay by leaving questions about whether the debtor timely took timely corrective action to the bankruptcy court in the first instance.

[01/25] Otay Mesa Property, L.P. v. US
On appeal from a decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims awarding plaintiffs $3,043,051, plus interest, for the temporary taking of a blanket easement over five parcels of land and limiting the government's liability to the taking of an easement over those five parcels and limiting the period of the taking to April of 1999 to October of 2008, the judgment is affirmed in part and vacated in part, where: 1) the Claims Court erred when it concluded that the government's taking of the easement was a temporary rather than a permanent physical taking, resulting in an erroneous calculation of the plaintiffs' damages; and 2) the Claims Court did not err in limiting the government's liability.

[01/25] General Development Co., L.P. v. City of Santa Maria
On appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered in favor of the City of Santa Maria after the trial court ruled that a developer's petition for writ of mandate was time barred by Government Code section 65009 for failure to timely challenge the denial of a zone change, judgment is affirmed, where the trial court did not err in ruling that City's denial of the developer's rezoning application was a "decision of a legislative body to adopt or amend a zoning ordinance" within the meaning of section 65009.

Read More