Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles
Plaintiff, Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles, appealed a judgment from the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) awarding the defendant condemned compensation for the value of certain «ethical drugs» located on the condemned real property. The trial court refused to award any compensation for loss of business goodwill resulting from the taking. Defendant also appealed that decision.
Both the plaintiff Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles and the defendant condemned appealed a judgment which compensation awarded to the defendant for the value of certain «ethical drugs» located on the condemned real property but refused to award any compensation for loss of business goodwill resulting from the taking. The employment attorney san diego will assist you to understand employment laws.
On appeal, the court held that the constitutional provisions providing for the payment of just compensation upon the taking or damaging of private property for public use did not require compensation be paid for the loss of business goodwill sustained due to the exercise of the power of an eminent domain. Recourse for recoupment of injury of this kind lay with the legislative branch. Accordingly, the trial court was correct in denying compensation in this respect. However, the court did err in awarding the defendant compensation for his inventory of ethical drugs. The judgment, therefore, had to be reversed.
The court reversed the trial court’s judgment ruling in favor of the plaintiff, Community Redevelopment Agency of Los Angeles. Defendant condemned was not entitled to recover compensation either for loss of business goodwill or for the loss of value of his inventory of «ethical drugs,» resulting from the condemnation of the real property owned by him.
Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to vacate a California trial court judgment convicting him of criminal contempt for his disobedience of a subpoena duces tecum, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him where the subpoena was served upon his counsel rather than being personally served upon the petitioner.
Petitioner was convicted of criminal contempt for failing to comply with a subpoena duces tecum directing him to appear as a witness at a civil trial after the trial court concluded that service upon petitioner’s attorney was proper. Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to vacate his conviction, arguing the absence of personal jurisdiction over him. In annulling the judgment of conviction and ordered that the petitioner be discharged, the court concluded that substituted service of a subpoena on an attorney for a non-party witness was not valid service sufficient to convey personal jurisdiction over the petitioner, and he could not be punished for criminal contempt of court for failing to obey that subpoena. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1987 required that a subpoena be served personally, and while certain provisions of the state ’ s civil procedure code authorized substituted services of a summons, they did not address such alternative service as valid means of serving a subpoena. Based upon the lack of express statutory authorization for serving a witness subpoena upon an agent, service upon petitioner’s counsel did not give the trial court jurisdiction over the petitioner.
The judgment of conviction of contempt was annulled and the petitioner was ordered discharged, as California, civil procedure law required that a subpoena be personally served and did not authorize substituted service. As such, serving a subpoena upon the petitioner’s attorney was not sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction over the petitioner, and his conviction of criminal contempt for disobeying the subpoena was improper.