What's New: Verdicts

 

JURY VERDICT REPORT:

County of Los Angeles v. West Coast Liquidators, et al.
LASC Case No. BC 192979

HUGE LEGAL EFFORT BY PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNERS
SUCCESSFULLY DEFENDED BY
DEMETRIOU, DEL GUERCIO, SPRINGER & FRANCIS, LLP

Notwithstanding damage claims totaling almost $12 million and testimony of catastrophic impacts to one of the nation's top Pic 'N' Save stores, and notwithstanding a huge legal effort mounted by the publicly traded parent corporation of Pic 'N' Save Stores, a Los Angeles Superior Court jury awarded damages in an amount less than the initial deposit and pre-condemnation offer.

Jeffrey (Jed) Z. B. Springer served as trial counsel for the County. "The property and business owners reported to us that they had spent in excess of $750,000 in legal and expert witness fees through about two months prior to trial. All told, after the three and one-half week trial, we estimate the property and business owners mounted a $1.25 million legal effort."

Mr. Springer attributes DDS&F's resounding success to many factors. First and foremost, the County and DDS&F assembled a team of expert witnesses who not only had the proper credentials, but also did the necessary work and research so that their trial testimony was substantial and credible. The team of experts included Rik Neustein, MAI, Real Estate Appraiser; Kurt Goeppner, ASA, Real Estate Appraiser; Nevin Sanli, ASA, Business Appraiser; Noa Singler, ASA, Business Appraiser; Herman Basmacyian, P.E., Traffic Engineer; and Manuel Perez, AIA, Architect.

Another key to the success was the effective presentation of expert testimony, including the use of superior demonstrative exhibits such as charts, photographs, and aerial photographs.

With so many complex issues in the case, technology played an important role in this presentation. The County alone had in excess of 400 trial exhibits. The coordination and effective presentation of so many demonstrative exhibits was made possible by computerized technology and a top-of-the-line LCD projector. Margie Kato, a paralegal with DDS&F, successfully organized, and navigated her way through the hundreds of exhibits.

In the action, the County sought to acquire easements necessary to construct the Del Amo Grade Separation Project. The County obtained prejudgment possession of the property upon deposit of $2,030,100.

Defendants are the parent corporation of Pic 'N' Save Stores and operate one of the top five Pic 'N' Save Stores in the nation at the subject location.

Defendants sought damages as a result of the project in the total amount of $11,586,000. Defendants' goodwill appraiser opined to a $3,930,000 loss in business goodwill during construction of the project caused by inconvenient access, narrowing of traffic lanes, and detours. In addition, Defendants sought $7,656,000 in damages for the taking of the easements and severance damages as a result of a change in grade, loss of visibility, and impairment of access.

At trial, plaintiff's traffic engineer opined that, upon completion of the project, access will be substantially enhanced as a result of the separation of Del Amo from the railroad tracks along Alameda, particularly since the number of trains is projected to increase sharply in the future as a result of the Alameda Corridor Project. Plaintiff also contended that Defendant was not entitled to damages from temporary construction activities within the County's roadways.

Plaintiff's pretrial motion to exclude Defendants' claim for loss of goodwill was granted. The jury trial proceeded solely on the Defendants' claims for the value of easements and severance damages. The jury verdict was $2.0 million for the taking of the easements and severance damages.

Prior to trial, plaintiff's final settlement offer was $2.3 million; Defendants' final settlement demand was $4.0 million.

As in most eminent domain trials, the jury's deliberations focused on the credibility of the appraisers. Mr. Springer's cross-examination of Defendants' expert real estate appraiser revealed an attitude of advocacy, and disclosed disparities in his testimony which were so great, that in closing argument, Mr. Springer asked the jury to reject his entire testimony. The jurors apparently did just that, and reported in interviews after the verdict that the Defendants' real estate expert was telling "fairy tales."

Defendants' almost unprecedented legal effort in an attempt to win almost $12 million in damages, an amount which would have pushed the project budget up by over 25%, therefore utterly failed. DDS&F's successful defense against these massive damage claims and almost unprecedented legal effort represented a resounding victory for the County and vindication of the County's initial and final settlement offers.