San Diego Inverse Condemnation Settles for $420,000
Table of Contents
Case Background
David Catton, an individual property owner, filed the lawsuit against the City of San Diego on September 1, 2023. Mr. Catton initiated the action in the Superior Court, claiming the City’s actions or lack of appropriate action had effectively stripped his property of its economic worth. The proceedings set the stage for a classic legal clash over government authority and private property rights in California.
Cause
The root of the complaint was a single, powerful legal claim: Inverse Condemnation. This concept holds a government entity responsible when its public actions cause damage to private property, essentially amounting to a "taking" under the Constitution's eminent domain clause, even though the government never filed formal paperwork to acquire the land. Mr. Catton’s suit argued that the City had engaged in conduct that directly led to the substantial loss of value for his property.
Injury
Mr. Catton claimed the City’s actions had inflicted severe financial injury by depriving his property of all economic value. The claimed injury was not minor damage but a complete loss of the property's utility and marketability. Because of this governmental interference, the Plaintiff lost the ability to use, benefit from, and enjoy his own land. He also lost the potential for rental income and other economic benefits the property ordinarily generated.
Damages Sought
The complaint demanded compensatory damages, with the final amount to be proven during a trial, but definitely exceeding the Court’s jurisdictional minimum. The damages Mr. Catton sought included restitution for:
Loss of Property Value: Compensation for the total loss of the economic value, use, goodwill, and enjoyment of the property.
Costs of Suit: Reimbursement for all litigation expenses, including necessary attorney’s fees.
Expert Fees: Recovery of the considerable costs for essential appraisal and engineering experts who evaluated the damage and the value of the lost property rights.
Prejudgment Interest: Payment of interest accrued on the lost value from the date of the alleged taking until judgment.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
The lawsuit moved quickly through the initial phases of the judicial process. The City of San Diego had submitted its formal answer to the complaint just weeks after the filing, setting up a clear legal confrontation. The City vigorously contested every core allegation, suggesting a long and expensive battle lay ahead.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): David Catton
· Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Vincent J. Bartolotta, Jr | John J. O'Brien
Defendant(s): City of San Diego
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Mara W. Elliott | Catherine L. Turner | M.Travis Phelps
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The attorneys representing Mr. Catton built their case on the fundamental principle that the California Constitution requires compensation when a public entity damages private property. They contended that the City’s actions, which included some form of permanent damage or regulatory overreach, created a situation where the property owner could not utilize his land. The argument stressed that, regardless of intent, the City’s conduct had created a liability, forcing the owner to seek redress in Court.
Defense
The City Attorney's Office launched a multi-faceted defense, flatly rejecting the property owner’s accusations. They denied that the City caused any damage or taking. The defense advanced several strong affirmative arguments, chief among them being:
Governmental Immunity: The City claimed that it enjoyed statutory and constitutional immunities from liability for the alleged conduct.
Statute of Limitations: The defense asserted that the Plaintiff waited too long to file his claim after the damage or taking occurred, therefore barring recovery.
Failure to Mitigate: The City argued that Mr. Catton had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent further damage or loss but failed to do so.
Unclean Hands: The defense suggested that due to some alleged conduct by the Plaintiff, the equitable doctrine of "unclean hands" applied, which should prevent him from obtaining relief.
Settlement
Just over a year and a half after the initial complaint, the parties chose to resolve the complex dispute outside of a jury box. On May 14, 2025, Plaintiff David Catton filed a formal Notice of Conditional Settlement of Entire Case with the Superior Court.
This action officially notified the Court that Mr. Catton and the City of San Diego had successfully negotiated an agreement that settled the lawsuit in its entirety for the amount of $420,000. The "conditional" nature of the settlement meant that the agreement was dependent on certain terms being met, typically the approval of the San Diego City Council and the execution of final documents. By agreeing to settle, both sides avoided the significant financial risks, immense preparation time, and public scrutiny that a lengthy trial on inverse condemnation claims would have demanded, and the property owner gained compensation for the alleged taking.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com