Inverse Condemnation Complaint - California

COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION — CALIFORNIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
3. Factual Allegations
4. First Cause of Action — Inverse Condemnation / Taking or Damaging (Cal. Const. art. I, § 19)
5. Second Cause of Action — Precondemnation (Klopping) Damages (Optional)
6. Third Cause of Action — Regulatory Taking (Optional)
7. Fourth Cause of Action — Federal Taking (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments) (Optional)
8. Damages, Just Compensation, and Litigation Expenses
9. Prayer for Relief
10. Demand for Jury Trial
11. Verification
12. Signature and Service Blocks
13. Proof of Service
14. California Practice Notes
15. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF [COUNTY NAME]

CASE NO. [________________________________]

COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION

Plaintiff alleges:

2. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

2.1. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF NAME] ("Plaintiff") is [an individual residing in / a [entity type] organized under the laws of] [COUNTY/STATE] and at all relevant times owned/held a [fee / leasehold / easement / other] interest in the real property located at [ADDRESS / APN] in [COUNTY] County, California (the "Subject Property"), more particularly described in Exhibit A.

2.2. Defendant [PUBLIC ENTITY] ("Defendant") is, and at all relevant times was, a [public entity within the meaning of Gov. Code § 811.2 / public utility] organized and existing under the laws of the State of California.

2.3. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued as DOES 1 through 20 and will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.

2.4. This Court has jurisdiction under Cal. Const. art. VI, § 10, and over the constitutional claim arising under Cal. Const. art. I, § 19.

2.5. Venue is proper in this County because the Subject Property is located here. See Code Civ. Proc. § 392 (actions for injury to or determination of interests in real property).

3. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

3.1. Prior to the events below, the Subject Property had a fair market value of approximately $[AMOUNT] and was used for [USE].

3.2. Defendant owns, designed, constructed, operates, and/or maintains a public improvement, namely [DESCRIBE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT — e.g., storm-drain system, road, water main, levee, public facility] (the "Public Improvement"), as part of a public project for public use.

3.3. On or about [__/__/____], and continuing thereafter, the Public Improvement, as deliberately designed, constructed, and/or maintained by Defendant, caused damage to the Subject Property as follows:

☐ Physical invasion or occupation of the Subject Property by Defendant

☐ Physical damage to the Subject Property (flooding, water intrusion, soil/slope failure, fire, debris)

☐ Impairment or loss of access

☐ Damage substantially caused by an inherent risk of the Public Improvement

☐ Other: [________________________________]

3.4. The damage was substantially caused by an inherent risk of the Public Improvement as deliberately designed, constructed, or maintained. The facts supporting that causal connection are [DESCRIBE THE RISK, HOW IT MATERIALIZED, AND ANY OTHER CONTRIBUTING CAUSES]. See City of Oroville v. Superior Court, No. S243247 (Cal. Aug. 15, 2019).

3.5. Defendant has not commenced an eminent domain proceeding and has not paid Plaintiff just compensation.

3.6. [If applicable] On or about [__/__/____], Defendant publicly announced its intent to condemn the Subject Property by [resolution of necessity / public statements / project designation], and thereafter unreasonably delayed in acquiring the property or otherwise acted unreasonably, directly damaging the value and use of the Subject Property.

4. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION — INVERSE CONDEMNATION / TAKING OR DAMAGING (Cal. Const. art. I, § 19)

4.1. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 2.1 through 3.6.

4.2. Cal. Const. art. I, § 19 provides that private property may be "taken or damaged for public use ... only when just compensation ... has first been paid," and that compensation shall be ascertained by a jury unless waived.

4.3. Defendant, a public entity (or public utility), took or damaged the Subject Property for a public use, as alleged above.

4.4. Plaintiff alleges that an inherent risk of the Public Improvement, as deliberately designed, constructed, or maintained, substantially caused the damage. A causal link to a public improvement alone does not establish inverse condemnation liability; the improvement's inherent risk and substantial causation must be shown. See City of Oroville v. Superior Court, No. S243247 (Cal. Aug. 15, 2019).

4.5. Because California's clause expressly compensates property "damaged," Plaintiff is entitled to compensation even absent a complete appropriation.

4.6. As a proximate result, Plaintiff has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest from the date of taking/damage.

5. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION — PRECONDEMNATION (KLOPPING) DAMAGES (OPTIONAL)

5.1. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 2.1 through 4.6.

5.2. A public entity is liable in inverse condemnation where, after publicly announcing its intent to condemn, it unreasonably delays eminent domain proceedings or otherwise acts unreasonably, directly and substantially impairing the value or use of the targeted property. See Klopping v. City of Whittier, 8 Cal. 3d 39 (1972).

5.3. Defendant publicly announced its intent to condemn the Subject Property and thereafter engaged in unreasonable delay and/or unreasonable conduct, as alleged in paragraph 3.6.

5.4. As a direct result, Plaintiff suffered diminution in market value, lost rents, and lost use of the Subject Property ("Klopping damages") in an amount to be proven at trial.

6. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION — REGULATORY TAKING (OPTIONAL)

6.1. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 2.1 through 5.4.

6.2. A governmental regulation effects a compensable taking under Cal. Const. art. I, § 19 where it denies the owner all economically beneficial use of the property (Lucas), or, under the multifactor test of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), where its economic impact and interference with reasonable investment-backed expectations, together with the character of the governmental action, amount to a taking.

6.3. Defendant's regulation/restriction described above effected such a taking of the Subject Property.

6.4. Plaintiff is entitled to just compensation for the regulatory taking.

7. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION — FEDERAL TAKING (FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS) (OPTIONAL)

7.1. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 2.1 through 6.4.

7.2. The Fifth Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation.

7.3. Defendant's conduct constitutes a [physical taking under Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 141 S. Ct. 2063 (2021) / a categorical taking under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) / a partial taking under Penn Central].

7.4. Under Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019), Plaintiff may pursue this claim without first exhausting state remedies.

8. DAMAGES, JUST COMPENSATION, AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

8.1. As a result of Defendant's taking or damaging, Plaintiff has suffered damages:

8.2. Plaintiff is entitled to interest on just compensation from the date of taking/damage, [__/__/____], to the date of payment.

8.3. If the Court awards Plaintiff compensation in this inverse condemnation proceeding, Plaintiff requests the reasonable costs, disbursements, and expenses actually incurred because of this proceeding, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees, under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1036.

9. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:

1. ☐ For a determination that Defendant has taken or damaged the Subject Property for public use within the meaning of Cal. Const. art. I, § 19;

2. ☐ For just compensation in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $[____________], including severance and, where pleaded, precondemnation (Klopping) damages;

3. ☐ For prejudgment interest from the date of taking/damage, [__/__/____], and post-judgment interest at the legal rate;

4. ☐ For litigation expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, appraisal fees, and engineering fees, pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 1036;

5. ☐ For costs of suit; and

6. ☐ For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

10. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. Under Cal. Const. art. I, § 19, the amount of just compensation shall be ascertained by a jury unless waived. (The court determines the threshold question of liability/whether a compensable taking occurred; the jury fixes the amount of compensation.)

11. VERIFICATION

I, [PLAINTIFF NAME], am the Plaintiff (or an authorized officer of Plaintiff) in this action. I have read the foregoing Complaint for Inverse Condemnation and know its contents. The matters stated therein are true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on [__/__/____] at [CITY], California.

[________________________________]

[PLAINTIFF NAME]

12. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

Date: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

[LAW FIRM NAME]

By: [________________________________]

[ATTORNEY NAME], State Bar of California No. [________]

Attorney for Plaintiff

[STREET ADDRESS]

[CITY, STATE ZIP]

Telephone: [NUMBER]

Email: [EMAIL]

13. PROOF OF SERVICE

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. On [__/__/____], I served the foregoing COMPLAINT FOR INVERSE CONDEMNATION on the parties below by [personal service / mail / electronic service] in accordance with Code Civ. Proc. § 1010 et seq. and the California Rules of Court:

[SERVICE LIST — for a public entity, serve the clerk, secretary, president, or other head, or as provided by Code Civ. Proc. § 416.50]

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

[________________________________]

[DECLARANT NAME]

14. CALIFORNIA PRACTICE NOTES

• Constitutional basis. Cal. Const. art. I, § 19 covers property taken or damaged for public use. Under City of Oroville, No. S243247 (Cal. Aug. 15, 2019), the claimant must ordinarily show that an inherent risk of the public improvement as deliberately designed, constructed, or maintained substantially caused the damage; a remote causal connection does not suffice. Assess the improvement's design assumptions and any property-owner conduct relevant to causation.
• Statute of limitations (theory-dependent). Physical-invasion/occupation claims (entity exercises dominion and control over part of the property) are governed by the FIVE-year adverse-possession period (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 318, 319). Physical-damage-only claims (no entry/possession) are governed by the THREE-year period of Code Civ. Proc. § 338(j). See Bookout v. State of Cal. ex rel. Dep't of Transportation; Cobb v. City of Stockton. Accrual can be tolled where the invasion is permissive or where damage from a public improvement is continuous/unstable until conditions "stabilize" (Pierpont Inn v. State).
• Government claims act. Inverse condemnation is a constitutional claim and is generally NOT subject to the Government Claims Act presentation requirement (Gov. Code § 900 et seq.); however, joined tort causes of action ARE. Verify for the specific entity/theory.
• Precondemnation (Klopping) damages. Where a public entity publicly announces intent to condemn and then unreasonably delays or acts unreasonably, the owner may recover resulting loss of value/income. Klopping v. City of Whittier, 8 Cal. 3d 39 (1972).
• Litigation expenses. When a court awards compensation in an inverse condemnation judgment, or the public entity settles the proceeding, Code Civ. Proc. § 1036 provides for reasonable costs, disbursements, and expenses actually incurred because of the proceeding, including reasonable attorney, appraisal, and engineering fees.
• Court / venue / liability vs. valuation. File in the Superior Court of the county where the property lies (Code Civ. Proc. § 392). The court decides liability (whether a compensable taking/damaging occurred); the jury fixes the amount of just compensation (Cal. Const. art. I, § 19).
• Section 1245.260. Where a public entity adopts a resolution of necessity but does not commence eminent domain within six months, Code Civ. Proc. § 1245.260 authorizes the owner to bring an action, including in inverse condemnation, and to recover damages.

15. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Cal. Const. art. I, § 19 — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1245.260 — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1036 (litigation expenses) — https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&sectionNum=1036.
• Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 318, 319, 338(j) (limitations)
• Klopping v. City of Whittier, 8 Cal. 3d 39 (1972)
• City of Oroville v. Superior Court, No. S243247 (Cal. Aug. 15, 2019)
• Cobb v. City of Stockton (Cal. Ct. App. 2011); Bookout v. State of Cal. ex rel. Dep't of Transportation
• Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (2019)

Disclaimer: This template is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. An attorney licensed in California must review and customize this document before filing. Laws, citations, and court rules change frequently; verify all authorities before use.