• Eminent Domain Litigation

    Eminent Domain Is Our Domain

    Manatt’s Eminent Domain Litigation practice is known throughout California and the United States for the experience of its litigators resolving property rights disputes involving large public or public-private projects, including highway, bridge and rail construction, urban redevelopment and revitalization, and other critical infrastructure.

    In addition, the firm has handled some of the largest inverse condemnation cases—those in which eminent domain was not formally invoked, so the taking must be proven—for both property owners seeking compensation and government entities contesting such claims.

    For example, we recently won an inverse condemnation judgment of more than $40 million for property owners whose land was converted to wetlands by the City of Half Moon Bay’s improper installation of a storm drainage system.

    Attorneys & Professionals

    Berger, Michael M. Los Angeles 310.312.4185
    Burg, Edward G. Los Angeles 310.312.4189
    Dwight, Kevin P. San Francisco 415.291.7464
    Gomez, Charles G. Los Angeles 310.312.4123
    Soneff, George M. Los Angeles 310.312.4186

    Eminent Domain Litigation

    Selected Clients

    • AMB Property Corp.
    • California Water Service Co.
    • Gypsum Resources Materials LLC
    • Keenan Land Co.
    • LA Metro
    • Office Depot
    • Regency Outdoor Advertising
    • U-Haul Real Estate Co.
    • Union Pacific Railroad
    • Yum! Brands Inc.

    Eminent Domain Litigation

    Representative Matters


    We have represented property owners in landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases involving the right to compensation for eminent domain and inverse condemnation, including:

    • Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (whether a land use moratorium is a taking of property must be decided on a case-by-case basis)
    • City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999) (right to Seventh Amendment jury trial and Fifth Amendment compensation for regulatory taking)
    • Preseault v. ICC, 494 U.S. 1 (1990) (federal "rails-to-trails" statute is valid under the Commerce Clause; however, compensation may be sought in claims court under the Just Compensation Guarantee)
    • First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) (Constitution requires just compensation for regulatory taking of property)
    • Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980) (ripeness rules for regulatory taking cases)

    Some more recent success stories:

    • We successfully defended the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority against claims alleging inverse condemnation from impacts of a light rail train.
    • We secured an award of more than $28 million for a property owner whose commercial building was devalued by condemnation of all parking facilities by Los Angeles Unified School District.
    • We won a judgment of more than $50 million for property owners whose land was devalued by condemnation for construction of a massive water storage reservoir by the Metropolitan Water District.
    • We defended Pacific Gas & Electric Company in lawsuits seeking the authority to condemn a 40,000-customer service territory in San Joaquin County, Calif.
  • Awards & Rankings

    logo/img/@altRanked in Tier 1 in Los Angeles for Eminent Domain & Condemnation Law 2010–2016