LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v. CASASOLA Part-I
<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js" type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-1698443-1"; urchinTracker(); </script> <html ><br /> <head><br /> <title>LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT v</title><br /> </head><br /> <body><br /> <div><br /> <br/><b >LOS ANGELES UNIFIED </b><b<br /> >SCHOOL<br /> DISTRICT</b><b > v. CASASOLA</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>Filed 8/5/10<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</b><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>DIVISION FOUR<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <table class=MsoNormalTable border=1 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 width=638<br /> ><br /> <tr ><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/>LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Plaintiff and Respondent,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> v.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/>RUDY CASASOLA et al.,<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> Defendants and Appellants.<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> <td width=319 valign=top ><br /> <br/> B215465<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> (Los Angeles County<br /> <br/> Super. Ct. No. BC351374)<br /> <br/> <br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table><br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/> APPEAL from<br /> a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles<br /> County, Ann I. Jones, Judge. <br /> Affirmed.<br /> <br/> Callanan,<br /> Rogers & Dzida and Joseph S. Dzida for Defendants and Appellants.<br /> <br/> Oliver,<br /> Sandifer & Murphy, Connie Cooke Sandifer and Cynthia C. Marian for<br /> Plaintiff and Respondent.<br /> <br clear=all ><br /> <br/> Respondent Los Angeles Unified School<br /> District (the District) acquired by eminent domain property on which appellants<br /> Rudy and Teresa Casasola (the Casasolas) operated a small business. The Casasolas relocated their business to a<br /> new, larger property and spent nearly $1.4 million moving their equipment and<br /> repurposing the new property to accommodate their business. They then sought reimbursement from the<br /> District for their relocation expenses. <br /> The District paid the Casasolas $224,252 in moving and reestablishment<br /> expenses, but rejected the remainder of the claim. <br /> <br/> The<br /> Casasolas challenge this determination on appeal, contending that their<br /> reasonable relocation expenses are reimbursable as expenses incurred to<br /> mitigate loss of business goodwill. They<br /> also challenge the trial court's award to the District of $180,000 in<br /> penalties, contending that the penalties are unconscionable. We affirm.<br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b<br /> >FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND</b><br /> <br/><b > </b><br /> <br/><b >I. The Eminent Domain Complaint</b><br /> <br/> The<br /> Casasolas are the owners of a catering truck supply company (referred to as<br /> Rudy's Wholesale or Western Catering). <br /> Until October 2007, the catering supply company was located on the 4600<br /> block of Western Avenue in Los Angeles (the property or the Western Avenue property). <br /> <br/> On April<br /> 26, 2006,<br /> the District filed an eminent domain<br /> complaint seeking to condemn the property. <br /> The Casasolas answered, claiming, among other things, the right to<br /> compensation for loss of business goodwill under Code of Civil Procedure<br /> section 1263.510 (section 1263.510). <br /> <br/> <br /> <br/><b >II. The<br /> Casasolas' Purchase of Replacement Property and Their Attempts to Vacate the </b><b<br /> >Western Avenue</b><b<br /> > Property</b><b ><b >[1]</b></b><b<br /> > </b><br /> <br/> The<br /> Casasolas purchased a replacement property located at 6236 South St. Andrews Place (the St. Andrews property). The St. Andrews property was much larger than the Western Avenue property, and it required<br /> considerable reconfiguration to accommodate the Casasolas' catering business.<b ><b >[2]</b></b> <br /> The Casasolas had difficulty getting the work permitted and completed, and<br /> they repeatedly requested additional time to remain on the property. <br /> <br/> On August<br /> 30, 2007,<br /> the parties signed a stipulation giving the Casasolas until September 4 to<br /> vacate the property (the August 30 stipulation). In relevant part, the stipulation provided: â€