Notable Eminent Domain and Inverse Condemnation Cases from 2017 (and one from 2018)

by Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Contact

Here are the cases that caught our attention from the universe of eminent domain and inverse condemnation during 2017 (and one case from January 2018).

We start with the published cases (which are binding precedent) and then recap some interesting unpublished cases.

Published Cases

(some links lead to an unpublished opinion that was later published by separate court order)

Murr v. Wisconsin (U.S. Supreme Court, June 23, 2017) 137 S.Ct. 1933

The United States Supreme Court’s ruling gives government agencies greater leeway to restrict development in environmentally sensitive areas.

The same family owned two separate adjacent parcels for several decades.  One of the lots was vacant and the other was developed with a cabin.  The owners attempted to sell the vacant parcel, but the County blocked the sale, citing 1976 regulations barring new construction in the area to decrease pollution and overcrowding.  A “grandfather” clause exempted existing owners, but the County argued that the clause did not apply to the vacant lot alone because it was connected to the family’s other land.

The family sued for a regulatory taking, arguing the County should pay the value of the vacant property (assessed at $400,000).  A Wisconsin appeals court sided with the County, holding the zoning rules did not eliminate the vacant parcel’s value because the owners could use both lots together as a vacation property or sell them as a unit.

The Supreme Court affirmed.  The Court relied on a multi-factor test which includes examination of state and local laws, the reasonable expectations of the owners, the physical characteristics of the property, and the effect of the regulation on the land’s value.  The Court decided that the family had “not been deprived of all economically beneficial use of their property,” which is the test for determining whether a zoning regulation has gone too far and constitutes an uncompensated “taking” of private property.

Lynch v. California Coastal Commission (Cal. Supreme Court, July 6, 2017) 3 Cal.5th 470

Following a significant bluff failure that destroyed an existing seawall and beach stairway, owners of two bluff-top coastal homes applied to the Coastal Commission to demolish the remainder of the failed wall and build a new seawall and stairway.  The Commission approved the permit as to the seawall with special conditions, including limiting the duration of the permit to 20 years (subject to renewal), prohibiting the stairway, and requiring a deed restriction providing that the special conditions constituted covenants running with the land for the duration of the permit.

The owners signed and recorded the required deed restriction, pulled the permit and constructed the seawall, but at the same time sued the Commission in a writ of mandate action.  The Commission argued that the owners had waived their claims by accepting the benefits of the permit.  The trial court ruled for the owners, requiring the Commission to remove the challenged conditions.

The Court of Appeal reversed, finding that the owners had waived their right to challenge the conditions by accepting the benefits of the permit, and that Government Code section 66020, which ordinarily allows a developer to proceed while simultaneously challenging conditions, did not apply because the Commission’s conditions did not “divest the developers of money or a possessory interest in the property.”

The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision, finding that the owners had forfeited their challenge by accepting the benefits conferred by the permit and moving forward with construction before obtaining a judicial determination of their objections.

Medical Acquisition Company v. Superior Court (4th Dist. Court of Appeal, Jan. 11, 2018) 2018 DJDAR 425; __ Cal.App.5th __

This case addressed a novel issue regarding a condemnation defendant’s post-judgment withdrawal of an increased deposit made by the condemning agency.

The condemning agency (a healthcare district) made a pre-trial deposit of $4.7 million and sought to take immediate possession of the property (a partially completed medical building) through the “quick take” provision of the California Constitution, article 1, section 19(a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1255.010.  The defendant stipulated to the agency’s possession and withdrew the $4.7 million deposit.

A jury later determined just compensation for the taking was nearly $17 million.  The trial court entered judgment and then ordered the agency to increase its deposit by $12.2 million. The agency filed an appeal of the judgment.  The agency then filed a notice of abandonment of the eminent domain proceeding.  The trial court granted the defendant’s motion to set aside the abandonment. The agency appealed that order. Needing to comply with the trial court’s deposit order while the appeal was pending (or else risking the appeal being dismissed), the agency made the additional deposit.

The defendant applied for the prompt release of the entire additional deposit without any bond or undertaking.  The trial court allowed defendant to withdraw an additional $4.4 million without a bond, but required a bond before defendant could make any further withdrawals on the remaining $7.8 million.
Defendant challenged this ruling by way of petition for writ of mandate, arguing that the trial court should not have imposed any bond.  In response, the agency argued that the trial court should have required a bond for the release of any amounts from the additional deposit.

The Court of Appeal affirmed.  The court had to decide which of two different statutes applied: CCP 1255.250(a) (bond required for any withdrawals) vs. CCP 1268.140 (bond at trial court’s discretion for withdrawals of deposit).

The court held that section 1255.250 only applies prior to judgment.  Section 1268.140 applies “after entry of judgment,” which was the case here.  The Court held that the trial court’s imposition of a bond on part of the additional deposit was reasonable and within its discretion.  The bond was justified because if the agency’s pending appeal of the abandonment order succeeded, the appeal would result in the deposit being restored to the agency.

Central Valley Gas Storage LLC v. Southam (3rd Dist. Court of Appeal, April 19, 2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 686

This case addressed the valuation of “different” property in an eminent domain proceeding.

Central Valley operated an underground natural gas storage project in Colusa County.  The project encompassed 677 acres overall, 80 of which were owned by Fred Southam and his entity.  Central Valley negotiated leases for underground storage with almost all of the landowners within the project zone, but Southam refused to enter into a lease.  Central Valley invoked the power of eminent domain under Public Utilities Code section 625 to condemn underground gas storage rights on Southam’s property.

At trial, Southam did not contest the right to take, but contended his property was far more valuable than what Central Valley had offered due to the property’s vast underground storage volume.  Central Valley filed a motion to exclude the evidence of any valuation method that depended on underground storage volume.  In support of the motion, Central Valley’s expert witness stated that a market for natural gas storage leases had developed in California over the past 20 years, and that such leases uniformly compensated owners based on the amount of surface acreage at issue, not underground volume.  Underground volume, the expert opined, was too uncertain and speculative to be used as a valuation metric.

The trial court granted Central Valley’s motion, and a jury rendered a verdict consistent with Central Valley’s position.  Southam appealed.

The Court of Appeal affirmed.  The Court held that when a developed market exists for the type of property at issue, it would be error to admit evidence of a valuation methodology that ignores the developed market. (In contrast, where there is no developed market, then value can be established “by any method of valuation that is just and equitable.”)  The evidence showed that a developed market for natural gas storage leases had developed, and that all leases in evidence were based on surface acreage instead of volume.

Surfrider Foundation v. Martins Beach 1, LLC (1st Dist. Court of Appeal, August 9, 2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 238

The new owners of property containing a local road leading to Martins Beach closed public access to the beach, triggering several lawsuits.  In this case, a nonprofit coastal preservation entity filed suit contending that a coastal development permit (CDP) from the California Coastal Commission was required by the California Coastal Act before closing public access.  The trial court agreed, and issued an injunction requiring the owner to allow public access to the beach until completing the CDP process.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, finding that the owner’s conduct of closing the road which had previously been open to the public for beach access constituted “development” for purposes of the Coastal Act, thus requiring a CDP.  The Court also determined that the owner’s constitutional challenge to the Coastal Act’s permitting requirement under state and federal takings clauses was not ripe, and that the trial court’s injunction did not constitute a taking per se, because the owner had not obtained a final decision on an application for a CDP.  The court also found that the trial court’s injunction was not a taking per se because of its temporary nature – it would expire when the Coastal Commission made a final decision on a CDP application, and thus was not a permanent intrusion.

Dryden Oaks, LLC v. San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (4th Dist. Court of Appeal, Oct. 19, 2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 383

This case emphasizes that an agency cannot be liable for inverse condemnation on a regulatory taking theory where the challenged land use regulation is not the “final say” regarding development of the property.

The property was directly adjacent to the end of a runway at McClellan Palomar Airport in the City of Carlsbad, and was designated as part of the airport’s Runway Protection Zone on the County’s Airport Layout Plan, a long-range planning tool that eventually became known as the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).  The landowner submitted an application to the City of Carlsbad to build a 30,000 square foot industrial building.  The City submitted the application to the regional Airport Authority for review.

The Authority declined to approve the project, but noted that the City could “override” that decision pursuant to Public Utilities Code section 21676.  The City did so, but the landowner failed to act on the permit before it expired in 2012.  Afterward, the City amended its general plan to ensure consistency with the ALUCP.

In 2013, the landowner submitted a new application, which the City denied.  The landowner sued the Authority and the County (but not the City), claiming that the adoption of the ALUCP prevented the City from approving the development.

The Court of Appeal held there was no liability for inverse condemnation.  A prerequisite to such a claim, the court held, was “a final and authoritative determination” regarding the development application. Here, the landowner failed to show that the Authority’s adoption of the ALUCP constituted a “final” land use determination as to the property.  That power rested only with the City, which was not sued.  The court noted that under the terms of the ALUCP, local agencies (such as the City) could overrule the Authority’s compatibility plans.

The court also rejected the landowner’s claim for “Klopping” damages (damages for unreasonable precondemnation conduct).  Usually, to be entitled to Klopping damages, a plaintiff must show that the agency indicated a “a firm intention to acquire” property and then either unreasonably delayed prosecuting a condemnation claim or commenced and abandoned a claim.  Here, there was no evidence that would support Klopping damages – the ALUCP was a broad planning document that only generically referred to the possibility of condemnation; it did not direct such action, and noted that in many circumstances eminent domain would not be appropriate at the site.

Mercury Casualty Co. v. City of Pasadena (2nd Dist. Court of Appeal, Aug. 24, 2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 917

This case held there was no liability in inverse condemnation for damage caused by a fallen tree where the tree was not a work of public improvement.

A storm in 2011 with hurricane-force winds uprooted a tree on city-owned property in the City of Pasadena, which fell on a nearby home owned by the Dusseaults, causing severe property damage.  The owners’ insurer (Mercury) sued the City for inverse condemnation.  There was no evidence regarding who planted the tree, but it was on city-owned property and the city had sporadically maintained it.  The trial court entered judgment in Mercury’s favor, finding the tree was a “work of public improvement.”

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the tree was not a “work of public improvement.”  The court noted that inverse condemnation liability is based on the concept that a private individual should not be required to bear a disproportionate share of the costs of a public improvement.  Here, there was no evidence that the City planted the tree as part of a construction project serving a public purpose, such as a roadway beautification project.  In fact, there was no evidence at all regarding who planted the tree or for what purpose it was planted.  The City’s ownership and occasional maintenance of the tree were not sufficient to make the tree a work of public improvement that would lead to inverse condemnation liability.

The court noted that other theories of liability might have succeeded, such as dangerous condition of public property, but that claim was not asserted.

Unpublished Cases

Glaser v. City of San Juan Capistrano (4th Dist. Court of Appeal, Apr. 19, 2017) 2017 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 232

This case held there is no liability for inverse condemnation for damage from an overflowing drainage ditch where the ditch was not a work of public improvement.

Plaintiffs owned a home in a small gated subdivision in the City of San Juan Capistrano.  A portion of a drainage ditch was across the street from plaintiffs’ home.  During an unusually high-volume rain storm in 2010, the drainage ditch overflowed, sending mud, water, and debris across a road into the plaintiffs’ home.  Plaintiffs sued the City for inverse condemnation, arguing that the ditch was the City’s responsibility because the subdivision developer had dedicated the ditch to the City.  After a trial, the court entered judgment in favor of the City.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment.  The court held that the ditch was not a work of public improvement.  The ditch was constructed by the private developer of the subdivision, who dedicated the ditch to the city, but that dedication was never accepted by the city.  The ditch was never connected to the city’s storm drain system.

Further, the city did not regularly maintain or otherwise exercise control over the ditch.  The evidence showed that it was the local homeowner association’s duty to maintain the ditch pursuant to the association’s written CC&Rs.

Preece v. Imperial Irrigation Dist. (4th Dist. Court of Appeal, Sep. 18, 2017) 2017 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 6367

This case holds there is no inverse condemnation liability where an irrigation project functioned as intended, but a storm exceeded the project’s design capacity.

A substantial storm in 2012 overwhelmed an irrigation district’s complex system of canals and drains. Flooding and silt deposits caused approximately $1.9 million in damages to the landowner’s alfalfa fields, barns, and ditches.  The landowner sued the Irrigation District for inverse condemnation, arguing that the District could have and should have taken several measures that would have resulted in less damage.  The trial court found the district liable, and entered judgment in favor of the landowner.  The District appealed.

The Court of Appeal reversed.  The court noted that strict liability does not apply to flood control projects; instead, a plaintiff must show that that agency’s design, construction, or maintenance of the project posed an unreasonable risk of harm to the plaintiff’s property and that the unreasonable design, construction, or maintenance of the project was a substantial cause of the damage.

The court held that the irrigation project functioned as intended and there was nothing faulty with the design, but the storm simply exceeded the project’s design capacity.  The court noted that without the benefit of the project, the flooding to the landowner’s property would have been much worse.  The project did not accelerate the natural flow of the storm runoff, or divert it to the landowner’s property.

Noting that the property was located in a historical flood plain, the court held that an agency has “no duty to improve on nature.”  The agency was not required to do more, or to upgrade its systems.

Palacios v. City of San Luis Obispo (2nd Dist. Court of Appeal, Aug. 24, 2017) 2017 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 5838

This case held there is no inverse condemnation liability for a City’s ministerial approval of private construction that interferes with a neighbor’s views.

Plaintiffs owned a home in a hillside development in San Luis Obispo.  Their home was on the highest elevation, and enjoyed expansive views of the City and the mountains.  New neighbors purchased a vacant lot across the street and showed plaintiffs some preliminary plans for a 2-story house.  Plaintiffs were initially cooperative, but soon discovered their new neighbors were actually constructing a 3-story house that would obstruct plaintiffs’ views.

Plaintiffs learned the City had approved the 3-story plan, and sued for inverse condemnation based on the construction approvals.  The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer and dismissed the action.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding: “No taking arises without public use or enjoyment. A city is not liable in inverse condemnation for injury to private property within a subdivision resulting from completely private construction – privately designed, financed, and built – on a private street where the city’s sole affirmative action was the issuance of permits and approval of the subdivision map.”

The Court noted that new home specifications were controlled by the subdivision’s CC&Rs and Architectural Control Committee.  The City merely performed a brief “over-the-counter” review of the design package.

Cal. Cartage Co. v. City of L.A. (2nd Dist. Court of Appeal, May 1, 2017) 2017 Cal.App.Unpub.LEXIS 3008

This case held that there is no inverse condemnation liability for an agency’s termination of a month to month tenancy, despite the tenant’s long-term build-up of goodwill and valuable improvements on the property.

The City owned 55 acres near the port of Los Angeles.  Plaintiff had leased the property from the City since the 1950s.  Over time it had constructed extensive physical improvements and developed goodwill.  Leases had historically been in a series of fixed terms, but had recently lapsed to month to month.

The City terminated the lease as part of an infrastructure project to modernize the harbor.  Plaintiff sued for inverse condemnation, arguing that the lease termination was the “substantial equivalent” of an eminent domain proceeding.

Trial court sustained the City’s demurrer, and dismissed the case.

The Court of Appeal affirmed.  The court acknowledged a few other cases where agencies were found liable for terminating a tenant’s lease.  But in those cases, the public agency threatened to use its eminent domain powers before the lease termination.  Here, the agency never threatened to use its power of eminent domain – it didn’t have to because it already owned the property (and had owned it continuously for 60 years).

[View source.]

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP
Contact
more
less

Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.