Results
City of Sacramento v. Sacramento Area League of Associated Muslims (SALAM) (2018)
Sacramento County Superior Court No. 34-2017-00214473
| Initial Offer | $2,000.00 |
| Jury Awarded | $529,648.00 |
In addition, filed a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs based on Plaintiff’s unreasonable Final Demand. Our client was awarded $253,427.15 by the Court in addition to the jury verdict.
Great Oaks Water Company v. Bahuguna (2016)
Santa Clara Superior Court No. 115CV276571
| Initial Offer | $76,000.00 |
| Jury Awarded | $353,000.00 |
Caltrans v. Singh (2015)
San Joaquin Superior Court No. 39-2011-00256897-CU-EI-STK
| Initial Offer | $1,000.00 |
| Settled for | $2,750,000.00 |
BP West Coast Products v. Kamal Azari (2013)
Solano County Superior Court No FSC 035180
| BP’s appraiser appraised it at | $1,400,000.00 |
| Our appraiser appraised the gas station at | $2,600,000.00 |
| Court found value was | $2,600,000.00 |
County of Sonoma v. Ritter (2013)
Sonoma Superior Court No. SCV252236
| Initial offer of | $134,000.00 |
| We settled this case for a total of | $815,000.00 |
Sacramento Area Flood Control District v. Hewitt (2012)
Sacramento County Superior Court No. 34200900066316
| Initial offer of | $1,100,000.00 |
| Our appraiser appraised the property at | $2,750,000.00 |
| The jury awarded her | $2,500,000.00 |
Napa County Flood Control and Water Conservation District v. Lewis Steven Case (2011)
Napa County Superior Court No. 26-50766
| District/plaintiff’s evidence was that the value of the property was | $215,802.00 |
| Mr. Case’s appraiser testified the value was | $533,000.00 |
| The jury verdict was | $476,586.00 |
The People of the State of California v. Kent, et al., (September 2010)
San Joaquin County Superior Court
Represented property owner in two-week jury trial concerning compensation for commercial property and building being taken for highway construction.
| State of California’s appraisal: | $2,290,000.00 |
| Property owner’s expert: | $3,500,000.00 |
| Jury Verdict: | $3,300,000.00 |
In addition, filed a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs based on Plaintiff’s unreasonable Final Demand. Our client was awarded $292,139.28 by the Court in addition to the jury verdict.
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 v. Ferreri, et al., (June 2008)
Alameda County Superior Court
Represented property owners in two-week jury trial concerning compensation for commercial property being taken for an underground pipeline.
| Zone 7’s appraisal: | $402,500.00 |
| Property owner’s expert: | $2,675,480.00 |
| Jury Verdict: | $920,000.00 |
Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Zone 7 v. Land Factors, Inc., et al., (April 2008)
Alameda County Superior Court
Represented property owners in two-week jury trial concerning compensation for commercial property being taken for an underground pipeline.
| Zone 7’s appraisal: | $593,000.00 |
| Property owner’s experts: | Between $2,923,885 and $3,820,000.00. |
| Jury Verdict: | $1,350,000.00 |
State Route 4 Bypass Authority v. Pomeroy (February 2007)
Contra Costa Superior Court
Represented property owners in a one-week jury trial concerning compensation for property taken from a U-Pick Cherry Orchard, including 100-year old walnut trees and Transferable Agricultural Credits (TAC credits).
| Bypass Authority’s appraisal: | $22,500.00 |
| Property Owners’ appraisal: | $316,000.00 |
| Jury Verdict: | $215,000.00 |
Sacramento County Redevelopment Agency v. Rashid (September 2006)
Sacramento Superior Court No. 04-AS05038
Represented property owners in three-week trial concerning compensation for value of gas station, including environmental issues.
| Red. Agency’s appraisal: | $190,000.00 |
| Property Owners’ appraisal: | $919,000.00 |
| Jury Verdict: | $492,500.00 |
Sacramento County Flood Control District v. Cross (January 2005)
Sacramento Superior Court No. 01 AS 06214
Represented property owners in a three-week jury trial concerning compensation for property taken in the Rio Linda area of Sacramento County, including significant flooding issues and a value based upon a higher and better use.
| SAFCA’s appraisal: | $ 160,000.00 |
| Property Owners’ appraisal: | $ 628,000.00 |
| Jury Verdict: | $ 400,000.00 |
CalTrans v. Peckham (May 1997)
Solano County Superior Court No. L004542
Our firm represented property owners in a two-week jury trial concerning property taken, including significant Army Corp. and BCDC issues.
| CalTrans’ appraisal: | $ 27,500.00 |
| Property Owners’ appraisal: | $ 620,000.00 |
| Jury Verdict: | $ 408,380.00 |
Contra Costa County v. James Ditmer (September 2000)
Contra Costa County Superior Court No. C99-01172
Our law office represented a property owner in a one-week jury trial concerning the value of property taken.
| County’s appraisal: | $ 158,000.00 |
| Property Owner’s appraisal: | $ 1,056,000.00 |
| Jury Verdict: | $ 744,132.00 |
City of Pleasanton v. Oetman, et al. (October 1998)
Alameda Superior Court No. V-12324-4
Our firm provided legal advice to property owners in a two-week jury trial concerning compensation for vacant residential land taken.
| City’s appraisal: | $ 24,000.00 |
| Property Owners’ appraisal: | $ 220,000.00 ($ 92,742 property, $ 127,258 severance) |
| Jury Verdict: | $ 212,422.00 ($ 72,422 property, $ 140,000 severance) |
City of Pleasanton v. Oetman, et al.
Court of Appeal, First District, Division 5
Appellate Case No. A085917
This case was unsuccessfully appealed by the City of Pleasanton. Our law firm represented Oetman.
City of Walnut Creek v. Hartwig (February 1995)
Contra Costa Superior Court No. C94-01177
Our law firm represented a property owner in a one-week jury trial concerning compensation for property taken for South Broadway Extension.
| City of Walnut Creek appraisal: | $ 23,000.00 |
| Property Owners’ appraisal: | $ 54,400.00 ($ 9,400 property, $ 45,000 severance) |
| Jury Verdict: | $ 48,400.00 ($ 7,497 property, $ 40,903 severance) |
Kerns v. CSE Insurance Group (February 2003)
California Appellate District Case No. A092076
Our law firm was a party in this published case in which the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining respondent’s renewed motion for summary judgment, because in so doing it violated the exclusive and controlling procedural prerequisites set by the Code of Civil Procedure section 1008 for the reconsideration or renewal of a previously denied motion.