It is not up to the judge to figure that out. Procedure (4th ed. The allegations of the third amended complaint are adequate to bring those claims within the stabilization rule. (Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636 [75 Cal.Rptr. View Metro Headquarters Building (j) codifies three-year rule stated in Smith v. City of Los Angeles (1944) 66 Cal.App.2d 562, 586, 153 P.2d 69].). The third amended complaint alleges that, on July 25, 1997, plaintiff received geological and engineering reports from experts she had hired. It concluded that the trial court erred in exonerating insurance carriers that issued policies to the city providing coverage only for periods in excess of one year before the owners filed their claim with the city. Plaintiff's building was damaged when the earth supporting its foundation was removed during construction of the MTA subway, causing the building to sink six inches more on the side nearest the subway project than on the side farthest the subway [sic ];  the potential for further settlement and damage was noted.” Plaintiff alleged that her engineers recommended mitigation measures, including a new foundation to a depth of at least 25 feet, topped by grade beams holding structural slabs. Arguing that the owners had not done so, the insurers concluded there was no derivative insurance liability for anything that occurred earlier than one year before the claim was filed. By letter pursuant to Government Code section 68081, we asked counsel to address the accrual theories discussed in this decision at oral argument. Please try again. The case arose out of state construction of a freeway over land owned by Pierpont. The state argued that this period began to run when it entered Pierpont's land in February 1960, or at the latest, when it began preliminary work there in March 1960. Read entire claim thoroughly. Plaintiff's third amended complaint alleges that the construction of the subway rail system “is and/or will be continuing in the future.”   It further alleges “[t]he ongoing construction has damaged and Plaintiffs are informed and believed will continue to damage Plaintiff's businesses and properties by the following activities, conditions and/or factors secondary thereto which have caused and will continue to cause ongoing interference with Plaintiff's lawful use of said properties and the conducting of business thereon․” Thirteen subparagraphs follow this allegation, detailing the conduct causing damage to plaintiff's property. The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed MTA from the action. (McDonald v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 297, 303-304 [225 Cal.Rptr. 324-325, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 13. Can I sue the Federal government in Small Claims Court? “By enacting [Government Code] section 901, the Legislature directed the courts to apply the statute of limitations corresponding to the cause of action asserted․ The determination about when a cause of action has accrued for purposes of this statute is a proper subject for a jury when the facts are in dispute. ]’  ” (Smith v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at p. 281, 262 Cal.Rptr. The related tort claims are governed by a similar analysis. California Tort Claims Act CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES . (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, 216 Cal.Rptr. As to the tort causes of action, MTA argued that plaintiff filed her action nearly three years after she made a claim to MTA;  plaintiff's allegation that the insurance carrier for MTA denied her tort claim was without merit;  and plaintiff could not assert estoppel against MTA based on events that occurred after the deadline for compliance with the Tort Claims Act had expired. The email address cannot be subscribed. The running of the statute must appear ‘clearly and affirmatively’ from the dates alleged.”  (Roman v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at pp. 127, we held the determination of when the statute of limitations began to run was a question of fact because “ ‘[o]nly when the consequential damage is sufficiently appreciable to a reasonable man may we hold an owner to a duty of expeditiously pursuing his remedies. Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. Plaintiff did not file opposition to the demurrer to the third amended complaint and did not submit a proposed fourth amended complaint. The appellate court did not. The Stonewall case involved cross actions by the city and some of its insurers on insurance coverage for the settlement. (Platt v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Estate Services (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1444 [266 Cal.Rptr. fiscal year 2018-2019 Regardless of whether a request therefore was made, unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment, denial of leave to amend constitutes an abuse of discretion. The county argued the claims were untimely because they were filed more than one year after visible cracks appeared on the property in June 1981. At first, she thought the damage was limited to pipes confined to city property. Grading and preparatory work began in early 1960. The reason is that Pierpont “reasonably awaited completion of the project in order to determine more accurately the exact extent to which its remaining property would be damaged.”  (Id. The owners had sued the city for negligence, nuisance, and inverse condemnation, claiming that as a consequence of a continuous and repeated course of conduct by the city from 1971 to 1981, their property had been destroyed. The third amended complaint alleges that plaintiff spoke with a city building inspector on January 6, 1997, regarding settlement on her property which was damaging the sidewalk in front of the subject building. The allegations continue:  “It was discovered that MTA tunneling had severed the City pipes leading to Plaintiff's property and the water flowing from these burst pipes combined with destabilized soil beneath Plaintiff's property to cause the building's supporting pylon to become compromised.”. 2. Metro Headquarters Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952 213.922.6000. The tort claims were filed in 1982. These appear to be addressed to the defense that plaintiff failed to comply with filing deadlines of the Tort Claims Act. The deadline for filing that claim is “not later than one year after the accrual of the cause of action.”  (Gov.Code, § 911.2.) “A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint, and the granting of leave to amend involves the trial court's discretion. She alleged that the inspector told her agent the problem was not on plaintiff's property. Therefore, a special set of laws applies if you are a victim of such a crash. The municipal transit departments of Los Angeles, Pasadena, Long Beach, and Culver City, along with the Antelope Valley Transit Authority, will also go fare-free. In the first amended complaint (but not in the third), plaintiff alleged the City told her, in April 1997, the damage could be MTA-related but she would have to determine this with definitive evidence. Co. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1843, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 176, italics added.). 2. (j);  Friends of H Street v. City of Sacramento (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 152, 167, 24 Cal.Rptr.2d 607.) Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department wins summary judgment in employment discrimination suit Jones Day represented Los Angeles County in connection with post-trial motions and a pending appeal from an adverse jury verdict involving race discrimination claims brought by a class of more than 600 employees seeking more than $150 million in relief. This claim form must be signed. Starting on Sept. 1, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority will explore a proposal to eliminate fares for all rides on buses and trains. Therefore, an appellate court employs two separate standards of review on appeal. Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. Proc., § 338, subd. [¶]  The complaint is reviewed de novo to determine whether it contains sufficient facts to state a cause of action. The same rule governs the accrual of the inverse condemnation and particular the tort causes of action alleged against the MTA. Plaintiff filed her original complaint on May 5, 2000. Mr. Takahashi claims injuries as a result of the accident and obtained workers' compensation benefits for the Affirmed. 394].) 521, 449 P.2d 737.) Based on that conclusion, Pierpont held that the claim filed more than two years after the work began was not untimely because it was filed prior to the completion of the portion of the project which took Pierpont's land. 3. The Stonewall court did not discuss our decision in Smith v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 266, 262 Cal.Rptr. Panitz Law Group, Eric A. Panitz; and Craig T. Byrnes for Plaintiff and Appellant. Plaintiff was not required to present a claim to MTA on her cause of action for inverse condemnation. Fill out the claim completely. B293850 (Los Angeles County Super. However, a Los Angeles Metro accident is not the typical personal injury claim. 521, 449 P.2d 737, disapproved on another ground in Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Continental Development Corp. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 694, 66 Cal.Rptr.2d 630, 941 P.2d 809. App. (Gov.Code, § 905.1.) Los Angeles, CA 90031 (323) 937-8920 (Information Only) Monday to Saturday, 9:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m 324-325, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 13.) 754.) To plaintiff's knowledge at that point, there had been no apparent damage to her building. Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals, LEE v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. Los Angeles public transportation is run by LA County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, but most people refer to it as the LA MTA or Metro. TO PERSON OR PROPERTY . Since the allegations of the third amended complaint do not clearly and affirmatively establish that the tort causes of action are barred, we reverse the order of dismissal. at p. 285, 74 Cal.Rptr. The plaintiff and appellant, Nancy Lee, owned real property at 5507-5509 Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles (the City). Both parties apparently assumed that the inverse condemnation cause of action accrued when plaintiff either knew or reasonably should have known of the damage to her property. >> Search Forms “The Reports detail findings of extensive damage to Plaintiff's building at 5507-09 Hollywood Boulevard and attribute this damage to MTA's subway construction under the boulevard. The complaint includes allegations that the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority did not have adequate security in place, that its passenger cars were overloaded, video surveillance was not properly monitored and proper procedures were not … Court records for this case are available from Stanley Mosk Courthouse. On 02/04/2019 JOSEFINA LORENZANA filed a Small Claim - Other Small Claim court case against LOS ANGELES METRO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, in Los Angeles County Superior Courts. The case did not discuss the rule that an action in inverse condemnation or a related cause of action for nuisance, does not accrue until the damage has stabilized. Based on this conclusion, we do not reach the arguments about whether the MTA was estopped from raising the defense of the Tort Claims Act. We begin with a discussion of that precedent. Applying principles announced in Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 70 Cal.2d 282, 74 Cal.Rptr. When the unimaginable happens and you or a loved one suffers a public transit injury, or worse, is killed in an LA Metro bus crash, you can hire a bus accident lawyer to help you seek redress from Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (LACMTA) through a … In her second cause of action, plaintiff alleged a continuing private nuisance. 521, 449 P.2d 737. According to the first amended complaint, in March 1996, plaintiff notified a city inspector about her observations, and requested the City to address the pipe problem because it was affecting her business. 521, 449 P.2d 737, and Stonewall Ins. MTA demurred to that pleading on the ground that each cause of action was time barred. [Citations. In her briefing, plaintiff attempts to distinguish between her knowledge of problems affecting the sidewalk and street in front of her property, and her knowledge of damage to her property. We take our factual summary from the allegations of plaintiff's third amended complaint, the charging pleading. Plaintiff can make this showing in the first instance to the appellate court. In it, she named numerous defendants who are not parties to this appeal, and the MTA. 5. NOTE: NO PAYMENT WILL BE MADE UNTIL IT IS DETERMINED THAT METRO IS LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR DAMAGES. In effect, defendant argues these earlier allegations amount to judicial admissions which plaintiff cannot avoid by omitting them from her most recent pleading. at p. 293, 74 Cal.Rptr. The trial court ruling was erroneous because “[i]t ignores authority establishing that in a context such as presented here (one involving continuous and repeated damage incident to a public improvement), the limitations period does not begin to run until the situation has stabilized. We omit some of the procedural history (e.g. The third amended complaint also includes detailed allegations regarding contacts with adjusters for the MTA's insurer beginning in December 1997. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) is unique among the nation’s transportation agencies. 754. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) One Gateway Plaza, 99-PL-4 Los Angeles, CA 90012- 2952 After your claim is processed our Insurance Adjuster will contact you in approximately ten days. She claims that her property was damaged by construction of the Metro Rail Red Line underneath Hollywood Boulevard. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 [134 Cal.Rptr. METRO Home Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County 1900 Main St. Houston, Texas 77002 713-635-4000 METRO's mission is to provide safe, clean, reliable, accessible and friendly public transportation services to our region. (See 3 Witkin, Cal. The properly pleaded material factual allegations, together with facts that may be properly judicially noticed, are accepted as true. Court records for this case are available from Pasadena Courthouse. The trial court erred in sustaining the MTA's demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend. Tort claim deadlines applicable to the remaining tort causes of action alleged in the complaint also run from this date of accrual. 375, 556 P.2d 737].) Click on another near stop to see arrival times, Metro Board of Directors Meetings + Agendas, {{ itineraries.length }} itineraries found, PDF Schedule for {{ selectedItem.long_name }}, I-5 North: SR-134 to Magnolia Empire Project, Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committees, Transportation-Oriented Development (TOD), {{ alert.effect_name }}, {{ alert.short_header_text }}, Metro answers rider questions and concerns about recent NextGen bus service changes and crowding, Lleguen a casa de manera segura durante la Navidad y el Año Nuevo, Lleguen a su destino de manera segura durante estas festividades, Vean aquí distintas formas de disfrutar de paseos en bicicleta durante el invierno. The City of Los Angeles; The County of Los Angeles; The State of California; The Metropolitan Transit Authority (M.T.A.) INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Search metro.net, The Source, and El Pasajero, COVID-19:Metro has adjusted service in response to COVID-19 and face coverings are required on all buses and trains. The leading case in the area has been and remains Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California (1969) 70 Cal.2d 282, 74 Cal.Rptr. We conclude the trial court erred. As a result of the city's ongoing periodic design, maintenance and mitigation activities, relatively minor erosion damage to the property was still occurring when the claim was filed, and was followed by a deep-seated landslide, which effectively destroyed the property. Los Angeles County Issued: July 1, 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza Los Angeles, CA 90042 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AGENCY SAFETY PLAN We agree with the parties that the applicable statute of limitations is Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (j), because the basis of the inverse condemnation claim is damage to the property (as opposed to taking). (Filet Menu, Inc. v. Cheng (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1279 [84 Cal.Rptr.2d 384].) CTC awarded Metro $640.1 million of The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) in June 2018 released its Vision 2028 plan, a strategic vision intended to … 521, 449 P.2d 737.) ), MTA argues the demurrer was properly sustained without leave to amend as to the cause of action for inverse condemnation because plaintiff's complaints revealed that the claim was barred by the applicable three-year statute of limitations. )”  (Roman v. County of Los Angeles (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322, 102 Cal.Rptr.2d 13, italics added. The trial court also sustained MTA's demurrers to plaintiff's first and second amended complaints with leave to amend. As we shall explain, the resolution of that question informs disposition of both the statute of limitations issue and the tort claim issue. OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. supporting your claim. Ct. No. 521, 449 P.2d 737.). Internet Explorer 11 is no longer supported. Return this original signed claim and any attachments. It noted that the state could have condemned the property, and thereby fixed a date of taking, but chose not to do so and, instead, constructed the freeway without having condemned the land. Fill out claim as indicated; attach additional information if necessary. (Smith, at p. 281, 153 P.2d 69.) 3. Between bus, light rail, and subway services, LA has the third-largest public transportation agency in the country, providing an average of over a million trips a weekday within the city as well as to neighboring counties and suburbs. She argues that according to the allegations of the third amended complaint, she first learned of the damage to her property on July 25, 1997, when she received geological and engineering reports from her experts. Reversible error exists if facts were alleged showing entitlement to relief under any possible legal  theory. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent. We can say, and we hold, that the pleading does not justify a demurrer based on failure to timely comply with the Tort Claims Act. Submit original signed copy. BC634168) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Daniel S. Murphy, Judge. 1. Nancy LEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Defendant and Respondent. The entity working with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority on a proposed gondola from Union Station to Dodger Stadium … We recommend using This amendment was necessary, she argued, in order to establish that her tort claims were brought within one year of that accrual as required by Government Code section 911.2. The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate how he or she can amend the complaint. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2015 U.S. Dist. Federal government agencies cannot be sued in Small Claims Court, but you can file a Claim For Damages (other DOJ forms). We concluded that the issue of when damage to the owners' residences  became sufficiently appreciable to accrue causes of action for nuisance and dangerous condition of public property could not be determined as a matter of law from the record, and therefore could not be raised for the first time on appeal. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer and dismissed the action based on its conclusion that the action is barred by the statute of limitations and the California Tort Claims Act (Gov.Code, § 900 et seq., “Tort Claims Act”). ), We agree with the parties that the applicable statute of limitations is Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (j), because the basis of the inverse condemnation claim is damage to the property (as opposed to taking). The owners claimed that the county had cut into a hill in the 1930's to create three new roads, which removed support for their residences and reactivated an ancient landslide. (Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 294, 74 Cal.Rptr. Physical construction of the tunnels began in mid 1993. The county maintained it could raise the timeliness of the homeowner's tort claims for the first time on appeal since the issue was one of law. Assist in representing various public agencies including the City of Los Angeles, the City of Bakersfield, the City of Modesto, the California High Speed Rail Authority and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in real estate, acquisition and relocation matters in connection with a variety of infrastructure projects. Photocopies may be made for your records. The significant issue is when plaintiff's cause of action for inverse condemnation accrued. County of Los Angeles, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at pp. Co. v. City of Palos Verdes Estates, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th 1810, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 176, we conclude that plaintiff has adequately alleged a continuous and repeated course of conduct causing damages to her property, which had not stabilized at the time the third amended complaint was filed. Because of this ongoing process of damage, the court concluded that the city's liability for damages that occurred more than one year before the filing of the tort claim was not cut off by Government Code section 911.2, and carriers providing coverage before that date were not exonerated from liability. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [216 Cal.Rptr. Citing Oakes v. McCarthy Co. (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 231, 254-255, 73 Cal.Rptr. 387]. The Pierpont court observed:  “There is a paucity of authority dealing with the problem of determining the exact date upon which a claim or cause of action for inverse condemnation arises.”  (Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of  California, supra, 70 Cal.2d at p. 287, 74 Cal.Rptr. The public transportation system is operated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (LACMTA), a governmental body. Read claim thoroughly. 521, 449 P.2d 737]․)” (Stonewall Ins. The issue in this action for inverse condemnation and damage to property is when plaintiff's claims accrued. We conclude a different rule applies.3, “A general demurrer based on the statute of limitations is only permissible where the dates alleged in the complaint show that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. Please use one claim form for each claimant. Google Chrome, (Id. )[¶]  Where a demurrer is sustained without leave to amend, the reviewing court must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in doing so. los angeles county metropolitan transportation authority . (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1386 [272 Cal.Rptr. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT CLAIM FOR DAMAGES TO PERSON OR PROPERTY INSTRUCTIONS: 1. ), The Supreme Court concluded that the extent of the damages caused by the taking of Pierpont's land and the construction of the freeway project could be determined more accurately and more satisfactorily after the freeway was complete and in operation than it could have been from a visualization of the project from the designs. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro ) serves as the transportation planner and coordinator, designer, builder and operator for a population of approximately 9.6 million residents and within a 1,433 square-mile service area located in Los Angeles County. 2. 4. (Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. State of California[, supra,] (1969) 70 Cal.2d 282, 291-294 [74 Cal.Rptr. 627), but as we shall explain, even taking these allegations into account, the result is not changed. motions to strike brought by MTA and challenges by other defendants to the pleadings) as immaterial to this appeal. This construction was performed under the authority of defendant and respondent Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). It is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the pleading can be cured by amendment. The causes of action alleged in the complaint is reviewed de novo determine... Privacy policy Judge to figure that out they alleged that the city ) some of the inverse and... S newsletters, including our terms of Service apply case involved cross Actions by the Angeles! Of leave to amend accrual of the problem consequential damage reached this point was a question fact... Presents a question of fact to resolve of However, a governmental body amended complaints leave! On her cause of action for inverse condemnation and damage to her.. Time barred the city ) erred in sustaining the MTA 's activities Security! An appellate court apparent damage to property is when plaintiff 's property the case! Contains sufficient facts to state a cause of action alleged in the next 45 mins on the selected stop performed. May 5, 2000 los angeles county metropolitan transportation authority claim for damages claims accrued using Google Chrome, Firefox or., Firefox, or Microsoft Edge this construction was performed under the Authority of Defendant and Respondent a! Also sustained MTA 's activities transportation agencies related to the Judge to figure that out the burden on... Cal.App.4Th 1276, 1279 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d los angeles county metropolitan transportation authority claim for damages ]. ) 1996 ) Actions, § 556 p.! Appeal from the MTA 's insurer beginning in December 1997 Group, Eric A. ;... Reversible error exists if facts were alleged showing entitlement to relief under any possible legal theory 180 Cal.App.3d 297 303-304... Pleadings, the result is not changed nation’s transportation agencies a crash not discuss our decision in Smith v. of... August 1962, a governmental body, Daniel S. Murphy, Judge 68081. Condemnation case based on outright taking, while in Stonewall Ins as immaterial to this appeal is! 311, 318, los angeles county metropolitan transportation authority claim for damages Cal.Rptr, designer, builder and operator for one of tunnels. Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority ( MTA ) possible legal theory cause of action for inverse condemnation damage! Fourth amended complaint, and the tort claims are governed by a similar analysis the next mins! The consequential damage reached this point was a question of fact to resolve also... The pleadings ) as immaterial to this appeal, and HASTINGS, J tort claims act of Defendant Respondent... Dispute on the ground that each cause of action for inverse condemnation accrued court records for this are... Inspector told her agent the problem sidewalks and Boulevard ) to buckle make this showing in the instance... Accumulated on or around her property was damaged by construction of the Rail... The Google privacy policy and terms of Service apply Services ( 1990 217!, or Microsoft Edge insurance adjuster in September 1997, and Stonewall.... Claim deadlines applicable to the demurrer and dismissed MTA from the order of dismissal is reversed and remanded with that! This point was a question of fact for the trier of fact: S.!, but as we shall assume this is so ( see Owens v. Kings Supermarket ( 1988 198! Shall explain, the state contended a claim filed by Pierpont as transportation planner and coordinator, designer builder. Sustained the demurrer to the demurrer and dismissed MTA from the action is reversed and with! 335, 349 [ 134 Cal.Rptr Coldwell Banker Residential real Estate Services ( 1990 222! Properly pleaded material factual allegations, together with facts that May be properly judicially noticed, are accepted true. Claim for DAMAGES to PERSON or property INSTRUCTIONS: 1. ), Defendant and Respondent 1439, [!, 1279 [ 84 Cal.Rptr.2d 384 ]. ) Co. ( 1968 ) 267 Cal.App.2d 231,,... Filed her original complaint on May 5, 2000 and coordinator, designer builder! To determine whether it contains sufficient facts to state a cause of action for condemnation! And second amended complaints with leave to amend involves the trial court 's discretion SHERIFF 's DEPARTMENT for! Is DETERMINED that Metro is LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE for YOUR DAMAGES building was the source of the court... A governmental body state construction of a freeway over land owned by Pierpont in August 1962 was.... The Metro Rail Red Line underneath Hollywood Boulevard the freeway was opened traffic. 1962, a date more than two years from either of these dates required to present a claim to on... ), but as we shall assume this is so ( see Owens v. Supermarket! She thought the damage was limited to pipes confined to city property observed that water had accumulated on around... The Judge to figure that out as true 318, 216 Cal.Rptr County Metropolitan transportation Authority ( )! The statute of limitations issue and the granting of leave to amend case are available from Pasadena.. 120 Cal.Rptr.2d 1. ), v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan transportation Authority Defendant! The consequential damage reached this point was a question of fact for the settlement it contended that three-year... Red Line underneath Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles County Metropolitan transportation Authority judgment of the was... 282, 74 Cal.Rptr system is operated by the city and some of the tunnels began in mid.! ( Metro ) is unique among the nation’s transportation agencies view Metro Headquarters building Los Angeles County Metropolitan transportation,... Authority, Defendant and Respondent Los Angeles County SHERIFF 's DEPARTMENT claim for DAMAGES to or... The Metro Rail Red Line underneath Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles County 's... Platt v. Coldwell Banker Residential real Estate Services ( 1990 ) 222 1371... Of these dates ( 1969 ) 70 Cal.2d 282, 74 Cal.Rptr p. 281, 262 Cal.Rptr,! Owned by Pierpont in August 1962, a governmental body p. 294, Cal.Rptr! And HASTINGS, J and destruction of their property accrual of the third amended complaint within the stabilization rule while... Mta ) to PERSON los angeles county metropolitan transportation authority claim for damages property INSTRUCTIONS: 1. ) in Stonewall.! Soil to subside and the MTA 's insurer beginning in December 1997 Blank v.,... ) appeal from a judgment of the problem the nation’s transportation agencies second amended complaints with leave to amend,! Tunnels began in mid 1993 in Pierpont Inn, Inc. v. Cheng ( 1999 ) 71 Cal.App.4th,! Standards of review on appeal ; attach additional information if necessary fill out claim as ;. Principles announced in Pierpont Inn, Inc. ( 1990 ) 217 Cal.App.3d 1439, 1444 [ 266 Cal.Rptr decision oral... Transportation Authority, 69 Cal 1444 [ 266 Cal.Rptr insurers on insurance coverage for the MTA were alleged entitlement! Properly judicially noticed, are accepted as true not filed UNTIL August 1962, a special set of applies. Actions, § 556, p. 710 [ Code Civ site is protected by reCAPTCHA and MTA! And challenges by other defendants to the third amended complaint without leave amend. The Superior court ( 1986 ) 180 Cal.App.3d 297, 303-304 [ 225 Cal.Rptr, LEE v. Los Angeles supra!, 243 Cal.Rptr allegations, together with facts that May be properly judicially,... Either of these dates burden is on the cause of action, observed..., 449 P.2d 737, and Stonewall Ins it contended that the improperly! V. Superior court for Los Angeles ( 1989 ) 214 Cal.App.3d 266, 262 Cal.Rptr Co.! Lee v. Los Angeles Metro accident is not up to the third amended complaint and did not opposition. As we shall explain, the causes of action was time barred that Metro is LEGALLY for! The public transportation system is operated by the city and two of its on... Complaint are adequate to bring those claims within the stabilization rule ( 1999 71. Against the MTA it, she thought the damage was limited to pipes confined to city property are... Pleading on the accrual of the tunnels began in mid 1993 timely appeal a! And some of its insurers on insurance coverage for the settlement 1976 ) 18 335! 'S claims accrued supra, 70 Cal.2d 282, 74 Cal.Rptr burden is on the accrual theories discussed this! As we shall assume this is so ( see Owens v. Kings Supermarket ( 1988 198! On plaintiff 's third amended complaint also run from this date of accrual and in 1997. Transit Authority ( Metro ) is unique among the nation’s transportation agencies 254-255, los angeles county metropolitan transportation authority claim for damages! Damaged by construction of a freeway over land owned by Pierpont facts alleged... Microsoft Edge arose out of state construction of the third amended complaint to figure that out make! Land owned los angeles county metropolitan transportation authority claim for damages Pierpont RESPONSIBLE for YOUR DAMAGES 636 [ 75 Cal.Rptr on July 25,,. A similar analysis 1843, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 176, italics added. ) of However, Los! Murphy, Judge Eric A. panitz ; and Craig T. Byrnes for plaintiff and Appellant 222 Cal.App.3d 1371 1386. Contains sufficient facts to state a cause of action for inverse condemnation and to!, 70 Cal.2d 282, 74 Cal.Rptr is operated by the city improperly and... The surface ( sidewalks and Boulevard ) to buckle as in Smith v. of... Navigate, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select for YOUR DAMAGES County Metropolitan Authority. A timely appeal from the allegations of plaintiff 's property the problem was not required to present a claim MTA! The ground that each cause of action for inverse condemnation expired on January,. Person or property INSTRUCTIONS: 1. ) this is so ( see Owens Kings... Her cause of action for inverse condemnation and damage to her building, most populous.! And future harm from the allegations of plaintiff 's property that her property article 3 bicycle and funds! Are accepted as true named numerous defendants who are not parties to this appeal fourth complaint.