Bradford B. Grabske - a Costa Mesa, California (CA) Real Estate Litigation Lawyer

Costa Mesa Real Estate Litigation Lawyer

Updated: 03/10/2026

Areas of Practice

Real Estate Litigation
Eminent Domain and Condemnation

Attorney Information

Overview

Brad Grabske specializes in the areas of eminent domain, inverse condemnation, land use/zoning and other property and business disputes. For over two decades, Brad has represented clients in trial and appellate courts throughout California on issues involving condemnation, renewable energy, the Solar Rights Act, the California Coastal Act, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), and other land use matters.

Brad has been recognized as a Rising Star and Super Lawyer in the area of eminent domain by Thompson Reuters’ Super Lawyer magazine. He is a regular speaker and author on real estate valuation and land use issues. Among other treatises and publications, Brad co-authored the condemnation section of the American Bar Association’s expert-witness treatise Litigators on Experts: Strategies for Managing Expert Witnesses from Retention through Trial.

Prior to attending law school, Brad worked in Washington, D.C. in positions in the U.S. Senate and with the United States Chamber of Commerce, as a Congressional Affairs Representative and Treasurer of the Chamber’s Political Action Committee.

Brad received his undergraduate degree and his Juris Doctorate from the University of Southern California.

Representative Matters – Landowner Focus

Nyenhuis Family Investments, LLC v. County of San Bernardino — Represented 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.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Gillis Family Partnership — Represented the Gillis family against the Los Angeles County Transportation Authority (“Authority”) in connection with the Authority’s taking of a building owned by the Gillis family in Century City. Before being displaced, the Gillis family operated a cutting-edge medical laboratory in the building. Murphy & Evertz earned an award of $53,503,000 for the building and improvements.

City of Ontario v. J.W. Mitchell Company, LLC, et al. — Represented the owner of a 43 acre site improved with a 762,296 square foot warehouse/distribution facility. The facility serves as the regional distribution center. The City of Ontario acquired portions of the property for its South Milliken Avenue Grade Separation Project. The City’s initial offer for the taking was $1,325,000. Pursuant to the owner’s request, the City modified the scope of the taking to mitigate on-site impacts. The case settled shortly before trial for $4,500,000.

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 $2,073,800. Caltrans ultimately agreed to pay $6,440,000 for full takes of two of the parcels.

City of Anaheim v. Etchandy — Represented owners of a multi-tenant commercial/retail property at the southeast corner of East La Palma Avenue and North Tustin Avenue - - in an eminent domain action brought by the City of Anaheim. The City sought to condemn a portion of the property for the Tustin/La Palms Roadway Improvement Project. The City first offered $989,210, and later valued the total compensation for the part take at $729,126, and an additional $386,000 for temporary severance damages. The City agreed to pay $2.2 million as just compensation for the partial takings.

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 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.

Caltrans v. ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC — Represented ARAMARK in an action brought by Caltrans to acquire one of ARAMARK's key market centers for the I-215 widening project. Caltrans' initial offer was $1,881,000. The case settled prior to trial for $4,500,000.

City of Victorville v. First Assembly of God of Victorville, et al., — Represented the church in an eminent domain action brought by the City to acquire property for its Nisqualli Interchange Project. The property taken included the primary driveway that provided access to the Church along with the front line of parking spaces. The City’s appraiser valued the taking at $436,000. The case settled with the City agreeing to pay $2.5 million, together with land use entitlements for new electronic reader boards, counseling center, baseball field improvements and parking.

Fresno Unified School District v. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, et al. - Represented the denomination and a local Fresno congregation and its Pastor against the District. The District sought to condemn the property for a new elementary school. The District initially offered $410,000. The case settled for total just compensation of $1,350,000.

Orange County Transportation Authority v. Cinnamon Tree Homeowners’ Association – Represented a homeowners association in an action brought by the OCTA. The OCTA’s pre-litigation offer was $525,000. The case settled before trial for $1,100,000.

Representative Matters – Public Agency Focus

County of Riverside — Assist the County with right of way acquisition necessary for infrastructure improvements. Provide counsel and assist the Facilities Management Department with the condemnation required to develop county facilities.

Orange County Flood Control District — Provide special eminent domain counsel to the District to assist in acquiring property for the Santa Ana River Mainstem/Prado Dam Project.

Los Angeles Unified School District — Represented LAUSD in complex eminent domain matters, including claims involving “grandfathered” emissions permits and emissions restrictions for manufacturing facilities located adjacent to a new high school. Mr. Grabske assisted LAUSD in resolving claims in excess of $80 million on terms favorable for LAUSD.

Superior Coating v. Los Angeles Unified School District — Represented LAUSD in an action brought by a business alleging inverse condemnation, trespass, nuisance, violation of civil rights, and other claims with a multi-million dollar claim for damages prayer for relief. Mr. Grabske was successful in having the court dismiss the case at the pleading stage. He also handled the briefing and oral argument on the landowner’s appeal. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s dismissal in favor of the District. Appellate Decision: Superior Coatings v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al, (2012) WL 3608621 [nonpub. opn.].

Land Use Matters

Mr. Grabske provides advice to his clients on a wide range of land use litigation and entitlement matters including the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Recent matters include:

Creed-21 v. City of Moreno Valley (Aldi, Inc.); CUMV v. City of Moreno Valley — Representation and defense of the City of Moreno Valley and Aldi, Inc. in two CEQA actions challenging the City of Moreno Valley’s approval of Aldi’s 800,000 SF refrigerated warehouse and distribution center. Aldi, Inc. is a world-wide grocery chain and the project will serve as its southwestern regional headquarters and distribution center for 150 new grocery stores. The project involves approvals including an amended Plot Plan and Addendum to the previously approved Westridge Commerce Center EIR.

Ganahl Lumber Company v. City of Corona (Watermarke Properties) — Representation of Ganahl Lumber Company challenging the City of Corona’s approval of a large-scale commercial and residential project adjacent to Ganahl’s property. Ganahl contends the City failed to, among other things, properly investigate and mitigate the project’s impacts on traffic and circulation. Ganahl contends the project will negatively impact access and visibility to its lumber business. The case settled with the City and Real Party In Interest agreeing to approve significant mitigation measures and easements in favor of Ganahl.

John Boyd Designs, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Unified School District — Representation and defense of the Los Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) against a CEQA action challenging its South Region High School District No. 12. The matter was dismissed by petitioners following a demurrer filed by LAUSD.

Appellate Experience

Residents Against Specific Plan 380 v. County of Riverside, (2017) E063292, Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division 2

Creed – 21 v. City of Moreno Valley (2016) WL7387287 [non pub. Opn.], Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.

Superior Coatings v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al. (2012) WL 3608621 [nonpub. opn.], Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

William Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc., (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544; 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177.

Industry and Legislative Experience

United States Chamber of Commerce, Washington, DC

Representative, Congressional and Public Affairs
Treasurer, U.S. Chamber Political Action Committee (PAC)

U.S. Senator John S. McCain, Washington, DC

Legislative Intern — U.S. Senate Commerce Committee

The Scowcroft Group, Washington, DC

The Forum for International Policy, Washington, DC

Awards and Honors

Super Lawyers® Selectees

Bradford B. Grabske included in a Super Lawyers® list

Other Sources of Feedback About Bradford B. Grabske

Included on the 2026 Southern California Super Lawyers list

Past Lists

2025 Southern California Super Lawyers list
2024 Southern California Super Lawyers list
2013 Southern California Super Lawyers list

Education

Legal Education
- University of Southern California Law School, Los Angeles, California, 2003
  J.D.
Non Legal Education
- University of Southern California, 1997
  B.A.
  Major: International Relations

Current Employment Position(s)

```
Partner
```

Classes and Seminars

Speaker, “Trespass, Adverse Possession and Other Unauthorized Access to Land” Rights-of-Way, & Eminent Domain Seminar, August 17, 2023.
Speaker, “Motions in Limine in Eminent Domain Compensation Trials” IRWA Chapter 1, 31st Annual Valuation Seminar, May 25, 2023.
Speaker, “Eminent Domain Overview,” California Easements, Rights-of-Way, and Eminent Domain Seminar, April 13, 2022
Speaker, “Boundary and Access Rights on Tribal Lands” California Boundaries and Easements Seminar, August 30, 2021.
Speaker, “Trespass, Adverse Possession and Other Unauthorized Access to Land” Rights-of-Way, & Eminent Domain Seminar, September, 2020.
Speaker, “Trespass, Adverse Possession and Other Unauthorized Access to Land: Absentee Owners Beware,” California Easements, Rights-of-Way, & Eminent Domain Seminar, April, 2020.
Speaker, “Taking Too Much: Governmental Regulations of Short-Term Vacation Rentals,” Los Angeles, CA, 2019.
Speaker, “Taking Too Much: Governmental Regulations of Short-Term Vacation Rentals,” CLE International Eminent Domain Conference, Scottsdale, AZ, December, 2018.
Speaker, “Anatomy of an Appraisers Deposition”, IRWA Chapter 57. Educational Seminar, Corona, CA, April, 2017.
Speaker, “Navigating Condemnation of Indian Land”, 18th Annual national Indian Realty Awards Program, Brea, CA, February, 2016.
Speaker, “Dos And Don'ts During The Pre-Litigation Process,” CLE International Eminent Domain Conference, San Diego, CA, March, 2015.
Speaker, “What’s Wrong With The Law of Valuation in Eminent Domain?: Four Rules We Need To Change Now,” American Law Institute National Eminent Domain Conference, San Francisco, CA, February, 2015.
Speaker, "Developments in the Eminent Domain Law Across the Country and Around the World," IRWA Annual International Eminent Domain Conference, Atlanta, GA, June 2011.
Speaker, "2019: Two Visions of the Next Ten Years in Eminent Domain and Public Acquisitions," IRWA Chapter 57 Education Seminar, Corona, CA, October 16, 2009.
Speaker, "Clear, Simple, and Wrong? The Rules on Environmental Contamination in Eminent Domain," IRWA Chapter 57 Meeting, Riverside, CA, October 7, 2009.
Speaker, "Implications of the Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc. decision," California Association of Community Managers (CACM) annual Law Seminar, San Francisco, California, February 2008.

Representative Cases

Nyenhuis Family Investments, LLC v. County of San Bernardino
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority v. Gillis Family Partnership
Southern California Edison v. J.W. Mitchell Land Company, LLC
City of Ontario v. J.W. Mitchell Company, LLC, et al.
Caltrans v. Javad N. Sani, M.D., & Parvin Nahvi, M.D.
City of Anaheim v. Etchandy
City of Lake Forest v. Alexander S. Rados, Trustee
Caltrans v. ARAMARK Uniform & Career Apparel, LLC
City of Victorville v. First Assembly of God of Victorville, et al.
Fresno Unified School District v. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, et al.
Orange County Transportation Authority v. Cinnamon Tree Homeowners’ Association
City of Fontana v. Requip Corporation
Caltrans v. Steany & Co.
Pacific Newport Properties v. Canam Metal Products, Inc.
Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc.
Appellate Decision: William Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc., (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544; 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177
Superior Coating v. Los Angeles Unified School District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District v. RCM Capital Partners
Residents Against Specific Plan 380 v. County of Riverside, (2017) E063292, Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division 2, California.
Creed – 21 v. City of Moreno Valley (2016) WL7387287 [non pub. opn.], Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 2, California.
Superior Coatings v. Los Angeles Unified School District, et al. (2012) WL 3608621 [nonpub. opn.], Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.
William Berryman v. Merit Property Management, Inc., (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th 1544; 62 Cal. Rptr. 3d 177.
CREED-21 v. City of Moreno Valley (Aldi, Inc.); CUMV v. City of Moreno Valley
Ganahl Lumber Company v. City of Corona (Watermarke Properties)
John Boyd Designs, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Unified School District

Published Works

Articles

Co-Authored a chapter for the American Bar Association’s practice guide on expert witnesses, entitled: Litigators on Experts: Strategies for Managing Expert Witnesses from Retention through Trial (Wendy Couture & Allyson Haynes, Eds., American Bar Association 2010), Experts in Condemnation Cases, Chapt. 10, p. 474, by John Murphy & Brad Grabske
Author, “CEQA Reform: Legislation Aimed At Streamlining The CEQA Review Process May have Unintended Consequences”, IRWA Chapter 57 Newsletter (June, 2013)
Co-Author, “Golden Gate Land Holdings, LLC v. East Bay Regional Park District: Chick Hearn And The Intersection Between Eminent Domain Law And CEQA”, Murphy & Evertz E-Alert (April, 2013).
Co-Author, "Superior Coatings Inc., v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Much Ado About Nothing", Murphy & Evertz E-Alert (September 2012).
"Listen Up: Make Rules for Driving While Talking (Exploring Employer Vicarious Liability Arising from Cell-Phone and PDA Use)," Daily Journal, April 27, 2007
"Private Employers Have Much at Stake in State High Court's Docket," Daily Journal, June 9, 2006

Bar Admissions

California, 2003
U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit
U.S. District Court Central District of California

Other Affiliations

Orange County Bar Association
American Bar Association
International Right-of-Way Association Chapters 57 and 67.

Be the first to write a review!

There are currently no reviews for Bradford B. Grabske. Be the first to share your experience.

Write a Review

Contact

Costa Mesa, CA

650 Town Center Drive
Suite 550
Costa Mesa, CA 92626

Directions

Phone: 714-277-1700

Fax: (714) 277-1777

Email: Send a message

Website: https://www.murphyevertz.com

Credit Cards Accepted
Free Consultations

Disclaimer

Your Profile? Update Now

When viewing a listing, consider the state advertising restrictions to which lawyers and law firms must adhere, as well as our FindLaw.com Legal Directory disclaimer. Some lawyers publish comparative information regarding the services that they provide which may be subject to specific comparative communications restrictions.

How do I choose a lawyer?

Consider the following:

Comfort Level – Are you comfortable telling the lawyer personal information? Does the lawyer seem interested in solving your problem?
Credentials – How long has the lawyer been in practice? Has the lawyer worked on other cases similar to yours?
Cost – How are the lawyer's fees structured — hourly or flat fee? Can the lawyer estimate the cost of your case?
City – Is the lawyer's office conveniently located?

Not sure what questions to ask a lawyer?

Here are a few to get you started:

How long have you been in practice?
How many cases like mine have you handled?
How often do you settle cases out of court?
What are your fees and costs?
What are the next steps?

Want to check lawyer discipline?

It is always a good idea to research your lawyer prior to hiring. Every state has a disciplinary organization that monitors attorneys, their licenses, and consumer complaints. By researching lawyer discipline you can:

Ensure the attorney is currently licensed to practice in your state
Gain an understanding of his or her historical disciplinary record, if any.
Determine the seriousness of complaints/issues which could range from late bar fees to more serious issues requiring disciplinary action.

Bradford B. Grabske - Costa Mesa, CA