Hill, Farrer & Burrill LLP

Since its founding in 1923, the firm has specialized in eminent domain litigation, regularly representing property and business owners in counties throughout California as well as the U.S. District Courts and the Court of Federal Claims. Most of these claims are direct condemnation claims in which a government entity seeks to take the private property of our client. We have represented property owners of large development tracts, industrial, commercial and retail properties, railroad and other rights of way, working ranches and farms, and every other possible use of real estate. We also represent business owners in loss of business goodwill and related claims.

A significant number of our cases are inverse condemnation actions where the government engages in conduct which constitutes an unconstitutional taking of private property but does not institute a direct condemnation action. These cases can be based upon so-called regulatory or actual physical takings of property, or other unreasonable pre-condemnation conduct which damages the property.

As a result of our long experience in these areas, we have represented clients whose cases have made new law in the area of eminent domain. Los Angeles v. Retlaw Enterprises, Inc. (1976) 16 Cal. 3d 473 (upholding various appraisal theories in then the largest eminent domain award in California) Cuna Mutual Insurance v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 382 (inverse condemnation action establishing property owner’s right to claim mitigation expenses incurred to protect property from threatened damage by public project); City of Vista v. Fielder (1996) 13 Cal.4th 612 (eminent domain case upholding commercial tenant's claims for leasehold bonus value and loss of business goodwill); Hawthorne Red. Agency v. Force Electronics (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 622 (eminent domain/inverse condemnation case requiring government to pay property owner immediately instead of over ten years for property taken and damages suffered)

Representative Matters

• Prosecuted claim for reimbursement of all harbor maintenance taxes imposed on beer manufacturer as unconstitutional. Pabst Brewing Co. v. United States, U.S. Court of International Trade Case No. 96-01-00154 (1999) 
• Represented literally hundreds of property owners whose property has been condemned by federal, state and local governmental entities, special districts, and utilities.  This representation has involved all types of property from high rise office buildings, industrial parks, shopping centers, residential developments, apartment buildings, farmland, and unimproved land.  Many of these cases have gone to jury trial at which our clients prevailed, but the overwhelming majority settled before trial. 
• Successfully represented client in obtaining a $15,500,000 settlement of partial taking eminent domain case after appeal. 
• Represented hundreds of business owners in loss of business goodwill claims caused by condemnation, as well as claims for improvements, inventory and mitigation expenses.  The subject businesses included, amongst others, gasoline and service stations, markets and mini-marts, retail chains, restaurants, discount stores, theatres, and industrial plants. 
• Successfully prevented the condemnation of properties sought for public uses. 
• Successfully prevented the condemnation of property based upon the condemnor’s failure to comply with CEQA prior to initiation of the condemnation action. 
• Successfully prevented the condemnation of property based upon redevelopment agencies’ failures to offer owner participation rights to condemnees. 
• Prevailed on appeal in an inverse condemnation case involving the El Capitan Theatre.  The retrial led to a finding of liability after which the case settled.  Our client also received an award for the fees and costs it incurred in the case from initial trial, on appeal, and on the retrial.  Cuna Mutual Insurance v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 382 
• Prevailed at jury trial and on appeal in an eminent domain action with an additional damage award for unreasonable precondemnation delay and conduct by the condemning agency.  Our client also received reimbursement from the condemning agency for the fees and costs incurred in the case.  Hawthorne Red. Agency v. Force Electronics (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 622

It is the Firm’s policy to recognize and promote diversity in its business dealings with clients, staff, and the greater legal community.  We are committed to enhancing the opportunities of women, people of color, and others who have been traditionally underrepresented in the legal profession to participate meaningfully in the practice of law and management of the firm.  We view our commitment to diversity as an ongoing, important, and worthwhile initiative that is consistent with our being a major  law firm in such a culturally diverse region as Los Angeles County.

Our dedication to diversity begins with the law schools at which we recruit, and extends to the hiring of staff and the selection of qualified partners and firm managers to run the day-to-day affairs of the firm.   We maintain a strong Equal Employment Policy and are proud of our long history of operating a law practice in which attorneys and staff feel welcomed and appreciated.  We intend to continue demonstrating the importance of diversity to the firm by sponsoring continuing education programs devoted to expanding opportunities for women and minorities in the legal field, participating in bar activities that recognize and promote diversity, and engaging in other activities in the community which foster and recognize the importance of diversity in our society.