KBB’s litigation practice coordinates directly with and facilitates the transactional activities of our clients. The same is true for the various land use, municipal and environmental matters handled by KBB. KBB’s litigation practice takes a flexible and pragmatic approach to solving problems of its clients. KBB has handled complex and precedent-setting issues at both the trial and appellate levels.
The following published decisions demonstrate how KBB has been able to use the entire breadth of its substantive practice areas to achieve favorable results.
CASE SUMMARIES-Historical KBB Decisions
Redevelopment Agency of the County of Riverside v. Superior Court (Birbeck) (1990) 228 Cal.App.3d 1487, 279 Cal.Rptr. 558
Objectors to adoption or amendment of a redevelopment plan must exhaust administrative remedies during plan adoption/amendment process.
Morgan v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 243, 284 Cal.Rptr. 745
- Statutory requirements for self-formation and representativeness of redevelopment project area committee were met.
- Substantial evidence supported determination that project area was blighted.
- Discovery is limited in validation actions.
- Costs may be assessed against unsuccessful validation action plaintiffs who do not own property in the redevelopment project area.
Lippman v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1630, 286 Cal.Rptr. 406
Project area committee may be disbanded after redevelopment project has been in effect for three years.
Lancaster Redevelopment Agency v. Dibley (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1650, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 593
KBB’s representation of the defendant challenging the redevelopment agency’s use of low- and moderate-income housing trust funds to pay for construction of freeway overpasses with no related affordable housing construction. Court ruled that such use of funds was improper where the overpass construction would not result in the construction of new housing for persons of low and moderate income.
A Local and Regional Monitor v. City of Los Angeles (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1773, 16 Cal.Rptr.2d 358
City council did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to prepare a subsequent EIR.
Gemtel Corporation v. Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Los Angeles (1994) 23 F.3d 1542
Developer had no right to damages based on redevelopment agency requirement that the proposed hotel pay service employees prevailing wages and benefits.
Castaic Lake Water Agency v. City of Santa Clarita (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 1257, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 79
Earthquake emergency recovery redevelopment plan is not exempt from CEQA.
Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 Cal.4th 854, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 242
- Development conditions can be attached to zone changes.
- Art in public places programs is a valid method to provide and aesthetic control on development.
City of Livermore v. Pacific Gas & Electric (1997) 51 Cal.App.4th 1410, 59 Cal.Rptr.2d 852
Franchised electric utility must pay cost of relocating utility poles to accommodate street widening.
Bernardi v. City Council of the City of Los Angeles (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 426, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 347
Stipulated judgment in redevelopment plan validation action is binding and conclusive and is not subject to modification.
Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hawthorne v. Force Electronics (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 622, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 209
Statute authorizing payment of judgments over ten years does not apply to judgment in direct condemnation action.
Wagner v. City of South Pasadena (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 943, 93 Cal.Rptr.2d 91
In order to meet the requirement of Government Code Section 65009 that an action challenging certain land use decisions be commenced and service made within 90 days of the decision, the initial pleading in such an action must be served in the manner of a summons and complaint.
Beach-Courchesne v. City of Diamond Bar (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 388, 95 Cal.Rptr.2d 265
KBB’s representation of plaintiff challenging the redevelopment plan adopted by the City of Diamond Bar. Redevelopment plan found to be invalid on the basis that there was not substantial evidence to support proposed project area.
CASE SUMMARIES-Recent KBB Decisions
IRATE vs. City of Inglewood BS170333
CEQA challenge to proposed Professional Basketball Arena Development
Judgment for the City of Inglewood 12/7/18
Uplift vs. City of Inglewood BS172771
Surplus Land Act challenge to Proposed Professional Basketball Arena Development
Judgment for City of Inglewood 1/14/19
IRATE vs. City of Inglewood BS174709
CEQA and Brown Act challenge to Proposed Professional Basketball Arena Development
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Granted in favor of City of Inglewood with Leave to Amend 10/2/19.
Dismissal of Motion for Judgment on Amended Pleadings.
MSG Forum vs. City of Inglewood BC670382
Public Records Act and Brown Act challenge to Proposed Professional Basketball Arena Development
of Clippers Basketball Arena
Petition against the City of Inglewood denied 5/16/19.
MSG Forum vs. City of Inglewood BS174710
Brown Act challenge to basketball arena
Dismissal prior to Trial.
MSG Forum vs. City of Inglewood YC072715
Breach of Contract; Fraud
Dismissed prior to Trial.
The Rautenberg Foundation vs. City of Inglewood 19TRCV00205
Inverse Condemnation and Trespass re Billboard Construction
Dismissal of City of Inglewood.
Christopher vs. City of Inglewood BC394617
Eminent Domain: Challenge of Right to Take: Denied 11.17.18.
Appeal B212433 of Denial of Challenge to Right to Take: Denied 12/30/2008.
Johnson vs. City of Lynwood BS175033
CEQA Challenge to New Housing Development
Judgment for City of Lynwood 1.17.20.
Affordable Housing Coalition vs. Imperial Beach/La Mesa 34-2012-80001158
Court of Appeals C083811
AB 26 Enforceable Obligations-Heath and Safely Code 34171 (d) (1) (C)
Judgment for Imperial Beach/La Mesa. 11.2.16.
Affirmed by Court of Appeal 8.25.20.