Verizon of California v. Carrick CA6

Filed 7/17/14 Verizon of California v. Carrick CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

VERIZON OF CALIFORNIA, INC., H038157 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. CV028324)

v.

PAUL CARRICK et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

This case concerns a private road that was condemned for a subterranean easement to install telephone cable. The Summit Road Association (SRA), is a group of people who maintain the private road with donations from and the efforts of its 140 landowner members. Judgment was entered in this case following a jury trial to determine just compensation. All of the the individual landowners whose property was affected by the condemnation have been fully compensated. However, the SRA appeals the court’s decision that it did not have a compensable interest in the property that was condemned. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE In October 2004, respondent Verizon California, Inc. (Verizon) filed a complaint in eminent domain. Verizon sought to place underground fiber-optic telephone cables along Summit Road between Los Gatos and Gilroy. The area at issue is privately owned by the owners of the property through which the road passes. The complaint names the

record owners of the properties in which Verizon sought to condemn an easement; the SRA was not named as a defendant in the original complaint. On October 15, 2004, Verizon secured an order for prejudgment possession, allowing it to begin installing cable along Summit Road. On March 7, 2005, the SRA filed a motion to vacate the order of prejudgment possession on the ground that Summit Road was “owned and maintained by the SRA.” On December 1, 2005, Verizon filed a “First Amended Complaint” adding the SRA as a defendant because the SRA claimed a property interest in the road. In October 2006, the SRA filed a verified answer to the “First Amended Complaint” in which it stated it was “the owner in interest of certain fees simple on behalf and as assignees from SRA Defendants of all fees simple absolute described in [Verizon’s] pleadings….” (Emphasis omitted.) The SRA also asserted it was “entitled to mitigation damages for . . . that section of Summit Road that the SRA is entrusted to maintain.” Half of the defendants, including the SRA opposed the proposed condemnation. The remaining defendants named in the “First Amended Complaint” settled with Verizon or opted to allow a default to be entered. In its opposition to the condemnation, the SRA argued that Verizon’s proposed project was subject to the provisions of Public Utilities Code section 625. The court conducted a bench trial on this issue and in August 2007, the court ordered Verizon to comply with the code section. In response, Verizon sought an order from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) finding that the proposed condemnation served the public interest. In June 2008, the CPUC issued an order finding that Verizon’s proposed project served the public interest. The SRA filed an application for reconsideration with the