Emily Madueno focuses her practice on eminent domain and inverse condemnation matters. She is experienced in advising both landowner and public agency clients in all aspects of an eminent domain matter. Ms. Madueno also represents and advises clients in land use litigation matters, including environmental disputes.
Ms. Madueno’s experience includes direct and inverse condemnation, partial and full takings, business goodwill claims, precondemnation damage claims, environmental contamination issues, and special-use property valuation.
Ms. Madueno has been recognized as a “Rising Star” in Los Angeles magazine’s Southern California Super Lawyers edition 2015 to 2022.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority adv. Yum Yum Donut Shops, Inc. – Successfully represented Yum Yum Donuts on appeal in an eminent domain action brought by MTA to condemn Yum Yum’s Crenshaw Boulevard shop in Los Angeles. MTA condemned the shop for its extension of the Metro Green Line. Yum Yum appealed the trial court’s determination that Yum Yum was entitled to no compensation for lost business goodwill. The Court of Appeal reversed in a published opinion. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Yum Yum Donut Shops, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 662 [244 Cal.Rptr.3d 201].) The California Supreme Court denied Metro’s petition for review and request to depublish the opinion.
Robertson’s Ready Mix – Defends RRM Properties, Ltd. in two eminent domain actions: one brought by Southern California Edison Company and another brought by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Edison seeks to acquire permanent right-of-way easements and temporary construction easements from RRM’s Banning facility for Edison’s West of Devers Upgrade Project. Metro seeks to acquire permanent roadway easements and temporary construction easements from RRM’s Artesia Plant for its Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project.
Target Corporation adv. L.A. County Sanitation District No. 2 – Represented Target Corporation in an eminent domain action brought by County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County. The District acquired a subsurface easement across the parking lot of Target’s San Pedro retail store. The case settled before trial, with the District rewriting its subsurface easement to allow Target to develop outparcel pads in its parking lot, plus the District’s cooperation with entitlements for that development. (May 2018)
Sky Climber Access Solutions – California LLC – Represents SCAS-California in an eminent domain action brought by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project.
Kaiser LLC – Represents Kaiser Transport Inc. in an eminent domain action brought by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority for its Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project.
Sun Pacific Farming adv. Caltrans – Represented Sun Pacific – – owner of a 27-acre citrus and avocado grove in San Diego County – – in a part-take eminent domain action brought by Caltrans. Caltrans sought part of the property to improve the State Route 76 and Valley Center Road intersection. The case settled before trial for nearly four times the precondemnation offer. (Sept. 2017)
Nyenhuis Family Investments, LLC v. County of San Bernardino – Represented the Nyenhuis Family – – owners of a 60-acre dairy farm in Chino – – in an inverse condemnation action against the County of San Bernardino relating to expansion of the Chino Airport. After getting the County to concede liability, our team achieved an arbitration victory of nearly $48 million in just compensation and attorneys’ fees for the family. (Feb. 2017)
Riverside County Transportation Commission v. 2410 Wardlow Property, LLC – Represented the Daleo Family – – owner of a multi-tenant commercial/retail property along the 91 Freeway – – in an eminent domain action brought by RCTC. RCTC sought to condemn a portion of the property to widen the 91 Freeway in Corona. RCTC originally offered $1.111 million. The case settled before trial for $4.7 million. (Jun. 2015)
Riverside County Transportation Commission v. Ostlund – Represented the landowner in an eminent domain action brought by the Riverside County Transportation Commission. The Ostlund Family owned a parcel totaling 20,909 square feet and improved with a commercial/industrial building. RCTC’s initial offer to the Ostlund Family was $1,117,000. The case settled before trial. RCTC agreed to pay the Ostlund Family $2.1 million. (Apr. 2015)
Riverside County Transportation Commission v. Charlie R. Webb, Rosina G. Webb, et al. – Represented the landowner in the City of Corona. The Webb Family operated Unique Designs, a successful outdoor patio and landscape art and furniture business, on the property for over 21 years. RCTC sought to condemn a portion of the property for its SR-91 widening project. RCTC valued the property at $886,000 and valued the lost goodwill at $84,000 for a total of $970,000. The case settled before trial for $1,796,318. (Jan. 2015)
San Bernardino County Transportation Commission v. Arrowhead Central Credit Union – Represented Arrowhead Central Credit Union in an eminent domain action by the San Bernardino County Transportation Commission. SBCTC sought to condemn a large portion of the credit union’s property for the construction of a detention basin for its Downtown San Bernardino Passenger Rail Project. SBCTC valued Arrowhead’s compensation at $1,184,811. The case settled before trial for $2,070,000. (Sept. 2014)
Caltrans v. Javad N. Sani, M.D., & Parvin Nahvi, M.D. – Represented owners of three ocean- and pastoral-view parcels totaling 13.47 acres off Highway 1 in San Simeon. Caltrans sought to condemn portions of two of the three parcels for its State Route 1 Realignment Project. Caltrans initially offered $1,073,800. It later valued total compensation for the part takes at $4,000,200. Caltrans ultimately agreed to pay $6,440,000 for full takes of two of the parcels, preserving the owners’ ability to seek compensation for the taking of, and damages to, the third parcel. (Mar. 2014)
City of Lake Forest v. Alexander S. Rados, Trustee – Represented the landowner in an eminent domain action brought by the City of Lake Forest. The City condemned the Rados Family’s property – – a little over 13 acres – – for a new sports park. The City valued just compensation for the expert exchange at $6.665 million. The case settled for $15.4 million. (Apr. 2013)
San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District v. Mentone Citrus Growers – Represented the owner-operator of a 197-acre historic citrus grove. SBVMWD condemned portions of the grove for its Citrus Reservoir Project near the City of Redlands. SBVMWD initially offered $1.8 million. The case settled for $6 million to Mentone. (Nov. 2012)
Roll Properties LLC and Carmenita SFS Property LLC adv. Caltrans – Represented owners of a 210,271-square foot, 62-unit business park in Santa Fe Springs along Interstate 5. Caltrans sought the business park for the I-5 widening project. After establishing the necessity for a full take, the case settled for $25.5 million, while preserving the client’s ability to seek substantial additional precondemnation damages and reimbursement of environmental remediation offsets. (Feb. 2011)
Bay City Partners LLC adv. City of Seal Beach – Represented Bay City Partners LLC, owners and developers of oceanfront property, in eminent domain and CEQA lawsuits against the City of Seal Beach. In the eminent domain lawsuit, the City initially offered $48,400 for some beach access. Bay City Partners LLC obtained settlement worth up to $2 million, plus the City’s cooperation in further entitlements for the property. (Mar. 2011)
People of the State of California, by and through the Department of Transportation v. Westminster Lodging, Inc. – Represented a Budget Inn hotel along Interstate 5 in Santa Fe Springs. Caltrans condemned a portion of the hotel property for its I-5 widening project. Caltrans initially offered $84,000. The case settled a few weeks before the jury trial was to begin for total compensation of $4.6 million to our client. (Nov. 2011)
Fresno Unified School District v. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, et al. – Represented the denomination, a local Fresno congregation, and its Pastor against the District. The District condemned the church’s property for a new elementary school. The District initially offered $410,000. The case settled for total just compensation of $1,350,000 for our clients. (Feb. 2012)
People of the State of California, by and through the Department of Transportation v. Renfroe, et al. – Represented Games for Fun, a retailer and manufacturer of game room tables and accessories, in an eminent domain action brought by Caltrans. Caltrans condemned a portion of the business’ property for the I-215 widening project. After two partial abandonments by Caltrans, the Court awarded our client litigation expenses and the case settled favorably for our client. (Nov. 2011)
People of the State of California, by and through the Department of Transportation v. Altmans, et al. – Part of the trial team representing the owner of an RV dealership. The condemning agency, Caltrans, initially offered $958,000. The case settled one week before the jury trial was to begin for total compensation of $7.85 million to our client. (May 2009)
City of La Puente Redevelopment Agency v. Gudzunas, et al. – Part of the team representing the owner of a three acre retail shopping mall developed in the 1950s. The condemning agency, the City of La Puente Redevelopment Agency, initially offered $3.55 million. Our team negotiated a lost rent agreement which insulated our client from any loss of income during the litigation. The case then settled on the eve of jury trial for total compensation of $6.2 million to our client. (2008)
Orange County Flood Control District – Providing special eminent domain counsel to the District to assist in acquiring property for the Santa Ana River Mainstem / Prado Dam Project. The District is partnered with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Flood Control Districts of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties on this project.
City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power adv. Inyo County – Providing condemnation defense counsel to the Department against Inyo County’s efforts to condemn Department-owned property, including water rights.
Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency (AVEK) – Providing special eminent domain counsel to AVEK to assist in acquiring property for its High Desert Water Bank Project, a water banking or storage facility to help remedy the significant groundwater overdraft condition existing in AVEK’s service area and in the Antelope Valley groundwater basin generally.
Orange County Flood Control District v. HRB Properties, LLC – Assisting the District with condemnation required to complete the Prado Dam Project.
County of Riverside – Assisting the County with the condemnation necessary for infrastructure improvements.
City of Los Angeles, acting by and through its Department of Water & Power v. Indian Ridge LLC – Provided condemnation counsel to the Department to ensure the protection of the First and Second Los Angeles Aqueducts. (Dec. 2016)
Orange County Flood Control District v. Moreno – Assisted the District with condemnation required to complete the Prado Dam Project. Represented the District at a bench trial on the amount of just compensation due (jury trial having been waived by the property owner). Obtained judgment for an amount less than the District’s final offer and within a few thousand dollars of the District’s appraised value. (Dec. 2014)
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District – Assisted the District with the condemnation required to expand its flood control facilities and to develop new flood control projects.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District adv. Goeppinger – Assisted in successfully defending the District at a legal issues trial resulting in a defense judgment on three of four claims. The claims involved inverse condemnation and nuisance. (Mar. 2012)
Orange County Flood Control District adv. Vander Dussen – Advised the District with acquisition of a large, operating dairy for the Prado Dam Project, and avoided litigation. The acquisition price of over $30 million was less than the District’s initial agency appraisal. (2010)
Riverside County Facilities Management – Provided counsel for Facilities Management with the condemnation required to develop county facilities.
Indian Wells Valley Water District – Providing special litigation counsel to the District in multiple actions involving rights to groundwater in the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Basin, including a comprehensive adjudication of the Basin.
San Gabriel Valley Water Company and Fontana Union Water Company re: Lytle Development – Represented San Gabriel Valley Water Company and Fontana Union Water Company in contract negotiations with private developers relating to well easements owned by the water companies. (2014)
County of Riverside adv. Independent Energy Producers Assn. and Large-Scale Solar Assn. – Represented the County in a lawsuit brought by two solar power trade associations challenging the County’s November 2011 adoption of a comprehensive solar power plant program. The solar trade associations raised various constitutional challenges, including allegations that the County’s program improperly imposed a tax without first obtaining voter approval. The case settled favorably for the County without trial. (May 2013)
Bay City Partners LLC v. City of Seal Beach, et al. – Represented Bay City Partners LLC, owners and developers of oceanfront property, in a CEQA lawsuit against the City of Seal Beach. Bay City Partners contended the City failed to comply with CEQA when it approved its River’s End Staging Area and San Gabriel River Bikeway Enhancement Plan. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Bay City Partners, finding the City failed to provide an accurate project description. (Mar. 2011)
Hollywood Hills, LLC – Advised a partnership that owns property on a hillside near the Hollywood sign.
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Yum Yum Donut Shops, Inc. (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 662 [244 Cal.Rptr.3d 201].
Selected as a “Rising Star” for 2015 – 2022 in Los Angeles magazine’s Southern California Super Lawyers edition.
Selected for the “Distinguished Service Award (aka President’s Award)” for Chapter 57 of the International Right of Way Association (2020/2021).
Selected for the “Sustaining Member Service Award” for Chapter 57 of the International Right of Way Association (2017/2018).
California Real Property Law Journal Editorial Board:
-Issue Editor (2021)
-Executive Editor (2020)
International Right-of-Way Association, Chapter 57 (Inland Empire):
-Communications Chair (2018-Present)
International Right-of-Way Association, Chapter 67 (Orange County)
Orange County Federalist Society Lawyers
Orange County Bar Association
“Eminent Domain & Inverse Condemnation: 2019 in Review,” 38 Cal. Real Prop. J 41 (2020).
“Eminent Domain & Inverse Condemnation: 2017 in Review,” 36 Cal. Real Prop. J. 2 (2018).
“City of Corona v. Liston Brick Co. of Corona: Keep Your Incompetent Evidence Out Of the Courtroom!” – Murphy & Evertz E-Alert (August 23, 2012).
“City of Livermore v. Baca: Groucho Marx and Severance Damages” – Murphy & Evertz E‑Alert (May 24, 2012).
“Owner’s Silence in the Face of Lender’s Withdrawal of the Deposit does Not Equal Waiver of Owner’s Claims and Defenses” – Murphy & Evertz E-Alert (December 1, 2011).
“Can Having a Plan Qualify as Bad Planning? Public Agency Proves It Lacks A ‘Plan,’ and Dodges Precondemnation Damages Liability, Despite Its Acquisition Program” – Murphy & Evertz E-Alert (April 26, 2011).
“Is That Your Final Offer? Agencies Beware A Final Offer Amounting to Less Than 60% Of The Compensation Awarded” – Murphy & Evertz E-Alert (December 3, 2010).
“Inverse Condemnation: Does A Buyer’s Prior Knowledge Mean No Recovery?” – Murphy & Evertz E-Alert (May 14, 2010).
Condemnation chapter in Ground Lease Practice (Continuing Education of the Bar, 2d ed. 2009).
“An Oral contract Worth More Than the Paper It’s Not Written On? Lack of a Written Lease Not Fatal to a Tenant’s Claim for Lost business Goodwill” – Legal e-Update (June 25, 2009).
“Ready . . . Fire . . . Aim!: California Appeals Court Rejects Vague and Overbroad Resolutions of Necessity” – San Diego Daily Transcript (May 1, 2009).
“California Appeals Court Holds City Liable for ‘Temporary’ Development Ban” – Legal e-Update (October 8, 2008).
“Don’t Let the Door Hit You on Your Way Out: Federal Court Door Closed to Inverse Condemnation Actions Against the State” – Legal e-Update (April 25, 2008).
“Proper Dates of Value in Eminent Domain: The Waters Get Less Muddy – California Supreme Court Orders RV Communities Depublished” – Legal e-Update (March 21, 2008).
“Temporary Severance Damages Only to Compensate for Actual Damages” – Legal e-Update (March 7, 2008).
“County’s Alleged Breach of Contract Does Not Equal Condemnation” – Legal e-Update (February 25, 2008).
“The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause: Public Use and Private Use; Unfortunately, There Is No Difference,” 40 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 809 (2007).
Speaker, “Unique Valuation Issues that Arise in Eminent Domain Matters Concerning Hospitality Properties,” Southern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute’s 55th Annual Litigation Seminar, Cerritos, CA (Nov. 3, 2022).
Speaker, “Understanding Eminent Domain, Eminent Domain 101,” Continuing Education of the Bar Webinar (Sept. 16, 2022).
Speaker, “New Legal Developments: 2021 in Review,” CLE International Southern California Eminent Domain Conference, San Diego, CA (Mar. 3, 2022).
Speaker, “New Legal Developments: The Year in Review; July 2020 to June 2021 in Condemnation,” IRWA Chapter 57 Membership Luncheon, Zoom (June 2, 2021).
Speaker, “New Legal Developments: The Year in Review; a review of 2019 cases affecting California condemnation practitioners,” CLE Webinar (June 11, 2020).
Speaker, “New Legal Developments: The Year in Review,” CLE International Southern California Eminent Domain Conference, San Diego, CA (Mar. 5, 2020).
Speaker, “Road Widening Case Study: Acquisition, Appraisal & Legal Issues,” IRWA Chapter 1 28th Annual Valuation Seminar, Montebello, CA (Feb. 25, 2020).
Speaker, “Eminent Domain 101: What Every Real Estate Practitioner Needs to Know about Eminent Domain,” California Lawyers Association Real Property Law Section’s 38th Annual Spring Conference, Newport Beach, CA (May 5, 2019).
Speaker, “Eminent Domain 101: Basics of Eminent Domain for the General Practitioner,” California Lawyers Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA (Sept. 15, 2018).
Speaker, “Interim Business Losses,” IRWA Chapter 1 23rd Annual Valuation Seminar, Montebello, CA (Apr. 28, 2015).
Speaker, “Surplus Property Disposition: How to Win the Game for Your Agency . . . And Stay Out of Jail,” 2011 IRWA 57th Annual International Education Conference, Atlanta, GA (June 13, 2011).
Speaker, “Square Pegs, Round Holes, Easy Targets: Valuing Special Use Property In Eminent Domain,” Appraisal Institute Spring Litigation Conference, Woodside, CA (May 26, 2011).
Speaker, “2019: Two Visions of the Next Ten Years in Eminent Domain and Public Acquisitions,” IRWA Chapter 57 Education Seminar and Casino Night Fundraiser, Corona, CA (Oct. 16, 2009).
Speaker, “Clear, Simple, and Wrong? The Rules on Environmental Contamination in Eminent Domain,” IRWA Chapter 57 Meeting, Riverside, CA (Oct. 7, 2009).