Eminent Domain
Representative Cases

These examples are for illustrative purposes only. Every case or legal issue depends

on its own facts, law and the unique credibility of the witnesses involved. Results

similar to the following are not and cannot be guaranteed.

Get good legal advice and help now in order to protect your interests. Contact us

The judge criticized the condemning agency’s conduct where the government

waited several years before initiating eminent domain proceedings to take our client’s

home, waited for the real estate market to go down, offered the owner less than

the debt against his property, and filed a motion seeking a court order allowing

it to take immediate possession. The firm opposed the motion on behalf of the owner,

arguing that the government’s conduct created an unjust hardship. The court agreed,

finding the government’s conduct to be “close to outrageous.” The following

is an excerpt from the official transcript:

excerpt

We negotiated a settlement for $407,000 more than the government initial offer

in a case where the government sought to condemn a client’s commercial

property where they operated a long time family real estate business which was well

known in a largely Hispanic community. Although the business had significant value

the Government failed to offer anything to the clients for the loss of their business

goodwill. We aggressively argued that the business lost significant business goodwill

when they were forced to relocate and start over in a new location.

$38.5 million dollar acquisition for school district

Lawyers with the firm negotiated the $38.5 million purchase, in lieu of eminent

domain, of a park as the site for a new school, helping the school district reach

agreement with city and county representatives.

Shopping Center acquisition for school district

Attorneys with the firm represented a local school district in successful negotiations

and eminent domain litigation to acquire a dilapidated, blighted shopping center

as the site for two new schools. The shopping center was located on six separate

legal parcels with six different owners, occupied by 38 different tenant businesses.

As part of this process, one of the firm’s partners (Joe Dzida) successfully established

for the first time that school district’s had the right to obtain advance funding

from the State Allocation Board for payment of goodwill loss to the tenant businesses

relocated for the project. Furthermore, impressed by Mr. Dzida’s as an opponent,

one of the six landowners later became a client of the firm.

Offer: $1,025,000 Compensation obtained: $3,205,000

When the government prevented our client from selling his property by announcing

that it would be acquired for an airport, the government refused to pay more than

$1,025,000. After winning at trial on the issue of if the government’s conduct and

delay were unreasonable, we obtained a $3,205,000 settlement payment for our client.

We negotiated a settlement for $1,038,865 more than the city’s initial

offer for a dentist’s commercial office property and business.

We negotiated a settlement for $714,000 more than the government offered

in the case where the government took land where a family business has operated

for decades.

At trial, we obtained a jury verdict of $600,000 more than the low ball

offer in the case where the government made an offer for apartments owned by our

client using sales that were artificially low and located in an airport flightpath

next to a freeway.

Offer: $530,000 Compensation obtained: $825,000

Representing a local diocese, we obtained a settlement of $825,000 after the government

only offered $530,000 for easement on church’s land.

Interstate pipeline acquisition

Lawyers with the firm represented an interstate gas pipeline company in the acquisition

of easements and franchises to maintain the pipeline under city streets along its

route. The pipeline ran from the “Four Corners” area to Long Beach.

Acquisition by university

Lawyers with the firm represented a local university in the purchase of adjacent

land, in lieu of eminent domain, for parking and other facilities, using California

laws granting private universities the power of eminent domain in certain situations.

Client Testimonials

Finally, I wish to thank you for the exceptional service you have rendered our company. I was very impressed with the fine work that you have done and am very appreciative. I am very glad to get to know you and look forward to resolution on this case…..

Finally, I wish to thank you for the exceptional service you have rendered our company. I was very impressed with the fine work that you have done and am very appreciative. I am very glad to get to know you and look forward to resolution on this case…..

Finally, I wish to thank you for the exceptional service you have rendered our company. I was very impressed with the fine work that you have done and am very appreciative. I am very glad to get to know you and look forward to resolution on this case…..

Address

800 South Figueroa, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90017

Phones

Phone: +1 213.599.7595
Mobile: +1 800.317.1759

contacts

info@crdattorneys.com
www.CRDAttorneys.com

working hours

MONDAY-FRIDAY : 9AM – 5PM

Fill out the form to contact us today!

First Name:

Last Name:

Email Address:

Primary Phone:

Preferred Contact Time:

Brief description of situation or case:

Yes ! I would like to receive other helpful updates and offers.