This federal diversity action arises out of a commercial lease agreement for a three-story building located at 2555 Park Boulevard in the City of Palo Alto, California (“City”). Plaintiff KJ-Park, LLC (“KJ-Park”) retained Erik Schoennauer, a land use consultant, to testify about land use entitlement and permitting procedures relating to the subject property. Defendants Match Group, Inc. and Match Group, LLC (collectively, “Match Group” or “Defendants”) filed a motion to exclude Schoennauer’s opinions.
Land Use Expert Witness
Erik Schoennauer draws upon 33 years of experience in local land use and redevelopment processes, public/media relations, community outreach, and political consulting to serve the clients of The Schoennauer Company. Moreover, he has a unique combination of experience, spending half his career in government service and the other half in private business, with extensive involvement inneighborhood and community affairs.
Discussion by the Court
Defendants Match Group movd to exclude Schoennauer’s opinions, primarily on the ground that his opinions are impermissible legal conclusions and that his opinions regarding KJ-Park’s alleged vested right with respect to the subject property are irrelevant. Additionally, Match Group argued that any probative value of Schoennauer’s opinions are “substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . confusing the issues, . . . wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence,” and therefore are excludable under Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
Schoennauer’s opinions largely concern whether the circumstances presented give rise to KJ-Park’s alleged vested right in the subject property, or warrant the application of estoppel principles.
Legal Conclusion
Schoennauer proposed to testify that, in his opinion, KJ-Park received “authorizations” for use of the subject property exclusively as office space that “vested through approval of the site-specific RLUA and/or issuance of the Building Permit.” However, he may not properly testify or offer opinions about issues of law, including the legal interpretation or significance of documents or events, or what the law requires with respect to the vested rights doctrine or the doctrine of estoppel.
The Court concluded that Schoennauer’s opinions about whether KJ-Park obtained an alleged vested right, or whether estoppel principles apply, including his opinions regarding the settlement agreement between KJ-Park and the City, must be excluded.
Relevance
KJ-Park contended that Schoennauer should be permitted to testify regarding general land use and development industry standards and practices. The vested rights doctrine and principles of equitable estoppel concern the legal rights and obligations as between KJ-Park and the City. Therefore, KJ-Park cannot, as a matter of law, use the vested rights doctrine or equitable estoppel as theories by which to hold Match Group liable under the subject lease and guaranty.
In conclusion, the Court is not persuaded that testimony regarding general industry standards and practices is necessary or relevant to understand the evidence with respect to any matters that remain to be tried.
Held
The Court granted Match Group’s motion to exclude Erik Schoennauer’s opinions.
Key Takeaways:
- Firstly, Schoennauer may not properly testify or offer opinions about issues of law, including the legal interpretation or significance of documents or events, or what the law requires with respect to the vested rights doctrine or the doctrine of estoppel.
- Finally, testimony regarding general industry standards and practices is not necessary or relevant to understand the evidence with respect to any matters that remain to be tried.
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Kj-Park, Llc V. Match Group, Llc Et Al |
| Docket Number: | 5:23cv2346 |
| Court: | United States District Court, California Northern |
| Order Date: | September 05, 2024 |
Leave a Reply