Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, CV 14-03242 PSG (PJWx). (2016)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20160829656 Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Aug. 25, 2016
Summary: [ PROPOSED ] AMENDED JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC PHILIP S. GUTIERREZ , District Judge . On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff Colony Cove Properties, LLC commenced this action against Defendants City of Carson and City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board seeking damages and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for a regulatory taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Beginning on April 28, 2016, Plaintiff's claim for re
More

[PROPOSED] AMENDED JUDGMENT NUNC PRO TUNC

On April 28, 2014, Plaintiff Colony Cove Properties, LLC commenced this action against Defendants City of Carson and City of Carson Mobilehome Park Rental Review Board seeking damages and declaratory relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a regulatory taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Beginning on April 28, 2016, Plaintiff's claim for relief was tried to a jury. On May 5, 2016, the jury duly rendered a unanimous verdict in Plaintiff's favor. (Dkt. No. 194.)

On May 16, 2016, the Court entered judgment in Plaintiff's favor on the jury's verdict. (Dkt. No. 200.) On June 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend the Judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to increase the amount of damages awarded by the jury and award prejudgment interest. (Dkt. No. 206.) The same day, Defendants filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b) and a motion for relief from the Judgment under Rule 60(a). (Dkt. Nos. 203, 205.) On August 8, 2016, the Court denied Defendants' renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and amended the Judgment to add the language set forth in paragraph 6, below. (Dkt. No. 221.) On August 10, 2016, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the Judgment to include an award of prejudgment interest. (Dkt. No. 222.) It denied Plaintiff's motion to the extent it sought an increase in the jury's damages award and also denied Defendants' motion for relief from the Judgment. (Id.) On August 15, 2016, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion seeking attorneys' fees and costs incurred through the completion of trial. (Dkt. No. 225.) Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED: increase application submitted in September 2007 constituted a regulatory taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

2. That Defendants' decisions with respect to Plaintiff's rent-increase application submitted in September 2008 constituted a regulatory taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; 3. That Plaintiff recover $3,336,056 in damages, jointly and severally, from Defendants; 4. That Plaintiff recover prejudgment interest at a rate of 4.5% annually for the delay in payment of just compensation between December 1, 2008, and May 16, 2016—representing $1,119,543.83 in prejudgment interest— jointly and severally, from Defendants; 5. That Plaintiff recover $2,910,299.62 in attorneys' fees and $98,818.96 in costs incurred through trial, jointly and severally, from Defendants; and 6. Having independently weighed and considered the evidence, the Court agrees with the jury's finding that a taking occurred, as well as the amount of damages that the jury awarded subject to the Court's post-trial motion awarding prejudgment interest.

IT IS SO ADJUDGED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer