california private nuisance attorneys feescalifornia private nuisance attorneys fees

Then, that brought the appellate court to the amount of the fee award. Here, there is no contract between the parties authorizing an award of attorney fees, and "Iowa's statutory nuisance lawIowa Code chapter 657makes no provision for the recovery of attorney fees" in . We can now report that the opinion was certified for publication on June 3, 2022. Case Was Not Unusual For Allowing A Fee Award Under Cases Which Did Allow Under Rare Circumstances Where A Benefit Exceeded Litigation Costs. We suggest you contact your local bar association lawyer referral service - they can help to connect you with a law firm that handles these cases. On the HOA side, HOA did not achieve its objective to fight Dr. Artus forever as far telling it how to govern, even though it did unilaterally make changesto make changes after fighting so hard was a difficult pill to swallow as far as showing it pragmatically prevailed. G060382 (4th Dist., Div. For example, when a junkyard is not operated according to state and local laws and it interferes with a neighbors use of the land, that may be considered a per se nuisance.2, Nuisance per accidens, sometimes called a nuisance, in fact, is an unreasonable use or interference, based on the surrounding circumstances.3, When a nuisance affects multiple people, a community, or a neighborhood, it may be considered a public nuisance. E076858 (4th Dist., Div. A civil action may be brought in the name of the people of the State of California to abate a public nuisance, as defined in S ection 3480 of the Civil Code, by the district attorney or county counsel of any county in which the nuisance exists, or by the city attorney of any town or city in which the nuisance exists. However, Gary may be able to file a private nuisance claim against Henry is obstructing the free use of Garys property. What damages are available in a private nuisance lawsuit? Comments (0). | It found plaintiffs pre-appeal and post-appeal motions for fees were separate, independent motions. The court determined that planting trees on neighboring property that blocked the sun was not a private nuisance. 4 Mar. THE LAW OFFICES OF HARLAN B. KISTLER - Riverside Personal Injury Attorney Located at 4193 Flat Rock Dr. #300 Riverside, CA 92505 The Law Offices of Harlan B. Kistler has extensive experience representing personal injury cases of all varieties in Riverside, CA including trip and fall accidents and serious or catastrophic injuries, so we can help you seek the compensation you deserve by building . 4 Oct. 26, 2022) (published), defendants properly won a summary judgment in a Proposition 65 case when new regulations debunked the idea that coffee roasting presented health risks which had to be disclosed. What led to the reversal was a good evidentiary showing by plaintiffs counsel that local attorneys in Stockton and Sacramento would not take the case such that local counsel rates were not germane, with the lower court not applying the correct legal principles on out-of-town rates once plaintiff made this evidentiary showing. A tort is a civil wrong where the actions or inactions of one party cause damage or loss to another. Plaintiff ended by contending that cross-complainant did not beat its CCP 998 offer, but that lacked merit because cross-complainants pre-offer costs well exceeded the offer on the cross-complaint and plaintiffs 998 offer only offered a temporal permanent injunction versus the unlimited permanent injunction obtained by cross-complainant. What are the elements of a private nuisance claim? The Fees Award Was Supported By PAGA, Section 1021.5, And The Catalyst Theory, And Apportionment Of Fees Among The Retaliation And PAGA Claims Was Neither Necessary Nor Possible, While Complexity Of Issues And Skill Of Attorneys Supported Multiplier In This Intensely Litigated Case. The illegal sale of a controlled substance is also a violation of other California Health and Safety codes and may be considered a nuisance per se. In Artus v. Gramercy Tower Condominium Assn., Case No. Posted at 07:51 AM in Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5) | Permalink Gomes v. Mendocino City Community Services Dist. | 3. That principle was in play to lead to a limited remand on a fee recovery in Elizondo v. Dept. The appellate court disagreed. B305604/B309145 (2d Dist., Div. California Supreme Court Denied Review, But Depublished On Its Own Motion. What is a private nuisance in California? Additionally, plaintiff failed to address defendants evidence of its ongoing efforts to remediate the impaired fish path evidence that demonstrated there was no causal connection between plaintiffs lawsuit and the relief obtained. Janice said it was a great idea. Proc. It may still be a public nuisance even if it affects different people in different ways.4. Citing, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Substantiation of Reasonableness of Fees, Private Attorney General: $239,479.65 Full Lodestar Fee Award Under CCP 1021.5 Was Reversed As A Matter Of Law On Appeal, Valley Water Management Co. v. Superior Court, Costs, Prevailing Party, Private Attorney General, Section 998, Trespass: Prevailing Defendant/Cross-Complainant Obtains Attorneys Fees Under Trespass Fee Shifting Statute Despite Receiving Nominal Damages And Also Receives Routine Costs, Private Attorney General: Plaintiff Winning Short-Term Rental Ban Dispute In California Coastal Properties Was Properly Denied CCP 1021.5 Fees, Private Attorney General, Section 998: Plaintiff Properly Denied CCP 1021.5 Fees And $700,000 Section 998 Fees In Favor Of Some Defendants Reversed. The fee denial was affirmed. Proc., 1021.5.) The problem is that plaintiff did not fall within these categories because the published decision was quite narrow, plaintiff was not seriously impecunious, and her judgment was of the type that could fund an attorney to litigate the matter. 5 July 27, 2022) (unpublished), plaintiff won $1.326 million in a jury verdict against County for a public property dangerous condition where, on a bicycle, she struck a pothole. However, because plaintiffs had additional success, the matter was remanded to see if any more trial fees were warranted as well as to calculate reasonable appellate fees to be awarded to plaintiffs for winning on appeal. Exemplary Damages When the facts warrant it, exemplary or punitive damages may be recovered in a nuisance case. : Reversal Of CEQA Parking Lot Issue Petition In Entirety Also Vacated Private Attorney General Fee Award, Save Our Access-San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conservation Authority, Private Attorney General: $115,000 Fee Award To School District In Winning Charter School Zoning Exemption Dispute Was Affirmed On Appeal, Private Attorney General: No Abuse Of Discretion In Trial Courts Denial Of 1021.5 Attorney Fees To Plaintiff Achieving A Significant Public Benefit. Based on this success, the lower court awarded plaintiffs $765,402.60 in CCP 1021.5 fees and $36,218.95 in costs (albeit denying a 1.5 multiplier request). Dept. 3491. The value that society places on the primary purpose of the conduct that caused the interference; The suitability of the conduct to the nature of the location; and. Individuals enforce private nuisance laws. Both the lower and appellate courts acknowledged that because CEQA rights were involved, a conceptual important right was involved. Comments (0). Costa Mesa, California 92626-1998 Telephone: 714-641-5100 Facsimile: 714-546-9035 . Your email address will not be published. One such statute is California's Private Attorneys General Statute, codified in California's Code of Civil Procedure at Section 1021.5. Whitley Financial Analysis Adopted By Lower Court Sustained On Appeal. The jury returned special verdicts against defendants finding in plaintiffs favor on three retaliation claims and on the PAGA claim, and awarding plaintiff $271,895 in past and future economic damages, plus $116,000 in noneconomic damages. In Frausto v. California Highway Patrol, Case No. Plaintiffs achieving even limited success in setting aside EIR and project approvals can, and often do, obtain significant private attorney general awards, which are usually borne by the developer (because the developer has agreed to indemnify the involved government entity even if the award is entered jointly against that entity). But, in these situations, whether the lawsuit was a substantial factor in the change was a factual call by the lower court, as Acting Presiding Justice Bedsworth observed as the author of the opinion, when sustaining the denial of fees. 6 January 25, 2021) (unpublished), plaintiff challenged the defendant colleges determination that he committed sexual assault in a petition for writ of administrative mandate arguing that Westmont did not give him a fair hearing and that substantial evidence did not support its decision. agreeing with one of plaintiffs arguments that the trial court erred in concluding that her fee award should be reduced because her litigation achieved limited success. A plaintiff can file a lawsuit against the individual or group responsible for the nuisance. See Shamsian v. Atlantic Richfield Co., (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 967, 982; see also Cal. There may be a number of defenses available to the defendant in private nuisance claims. Property owners are legally responsible for private and public nuisances that originate from their property even if the nuisance was created by someone else, like a tenant. 2. Code, 12900 et seq. | Plaintiffs won a wrongful death action, solely on a negligence account, on behalf of their decedent son who sued on the basis he should have been taken to a hospital, rather than a jail, even though he concealed that he swallowed drugs rather than gum. Courts can issue an injunction (court . However, Commission basically won in another go-around when a different panel of the First District found no public trust was implicated. The Trial Court Concluded Plaintiffs Failed To Establish Any Of The Three Requirements Affecting Eligibility For A Fees Award Under Section 1021.5, But Their Failure To Meet The Required Showing That The Financial Burden Of Private Enforcement Made The Award Appropriate Was Alone A Sufficient Basis For Denial. CODE 3481. Plaintiffs Attorneys, Who Bore The Risk Of Taking On A Partially Contingent Case With Important Public Interests At Stake, Displayed Exceptional Expertise and Skill In A Case Involving Nearly Five Years Of Contentious Litigation And A 19-Day Trial. Posted at 07:38 AM in Cases: Multipliers, Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Special Fee Shifting Statutes | Permalink | Comments (0). Please note that our law firm does not handle harassment or restraining order cases. 'In other words, it is possible for a nuisance to be public and, from the perspective of individuals who suf fer an interference with their use and enjoyment of land, to be private as well.' 1. Comments (0). v. County of Riverside, 81 Cal.App.4th 234, 240 (2000) [it is not true that a previously successful party is entitled to fees for postjudgment litigation regardless of the outcome of that litigation]; see also Ebbettts Pass Forest Watch v. Dept. Once you prevail on a significant CEQA issue, fee entitlement under the private attorney general statute is likely the general rule, to the chagrin of municipalities and developers. (As an interesting aside, the Proposition 65 settlement was $645,000, $481,000 which represented reimbursement of plaintiffs fees, experts fees, and costs.) These cases generally involve a person who engages in, Examples of a public nuisance may involve. The lower court awarded $350 per hour to plaintiffs counsel even though Bay Area rates were more in the $825 per hour range. The trial court denied concluding plaintiffs had not met any of the three required showings under 1021.5 for an award of fees. Brita enjoyed tending her backyard garden in order to attract a number of songbird species. Under the "American Rule," each party to a lawsuit is generally responsible for paying its own attorney fees, unless a specific statute provides otherwise. As to the 1021.5 fees request, plaintiffs forfeited this claim by not making it before the trial court. Clive may have been annoyed or disturbed; however, the jury would have to determine whether an ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by Britas tending to the garden. Fee award affirmed. Comments (0). Becerras Successful Defense Resulted In A Published Decision Enforcing An Important Public Right And Conferring A Significant Benefit On The General Public, And Becerras Personal Financial Burden Incurred In Defeating The Petition Outweighed Any Pecuniary Benefit Becerra Might Have Received If He Won The Election. Afterward, plaintiff moved for almost $130,000 in attorneys fees pursuant to Californias Private Attorney General Act. 4 July 18, 2022) (unpublished), real party in interest won a $66,725 private attorney general award based on its opposition to plaintiffs pre-election challenge to a local ballot initiative. 2009 California Civil Code - Section 3490-3496 :: Title 2. Consent is generally a defense to private nuisance lawsuits. A property that is used to sell drugs or other illegally sold substances can present a hazard to neighboring property. Former President/CEO unsuccessfully appealed the trial courts ruling concerning the $210,000 bonus. The limited reversal rule does not automatically mean a fee award falls if the appellate court believes that the success achieved was significant so that it could gauge the lower court would not change its original award. Henry is tired of people walking down the walkway late at night making noise. This denial was affirmed on appeal, given that success at early stages does not mean private attorney general entitlement for a party not ultimately succeeding in subsequent stages of a case. C088828 (3d Dist. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Illegal Sale of Controlled Substances, 3.4. BLOG OBSERVATIONAlthough she was not involved in this case, we note that 4/1 DCA Justice Judith L. Haller will be retiring from this appellate division after 28 years of service. Under CCP 1021.5, public interest litigantsif satisfying multiple levels of necessary elementscan be awarded attorneys fees for vindicating public interests under a catalyst theory. 28, 2022) (unpublished), the appellate court reversed the granting of Districts motion to discharge a peremptory writ of mandate in a land use case and the denying of plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees under CCP 1021.5. 1.1. Comments (0). However, Because Plaintiffs Entitled To Judgment On All Claims, Matter Remanded To See If Additional Trial Fees Should Be Awarded As Well As Calculation Of Winning Appellate Fees. | App. | Permalink When you are doing appellate work on abuse of discretion issues, the primary issue may be whether the lower court used the correct legal principles as far as reaching its discretionary decision. As to defendants contention that plaintiff was not entitled to 1021.5 fees post-appeal because he had not appealed the trial courts denial of his pre-appeal request for 1021.5 fees, the panel disagreed. No lapse of time can legalize a public nuisance, amounting to an actual obstruction of public right. Comments (0). Attorney requested $281,191.65 in contractual fees, with the lower court awarding $79,898. Proc., 1021.5 based on the catalyst theory finding that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard where it treated a directive issued by the Governor as the superseding cause of the relief obtained without considering whether plaintiffs lawsuits were a substantial factor in the Governors decision to issue the directive. The city did some technical amendments in line with the lower courts ruling. This could include: The illegal sale of a controlled substance is explicitly included as a private nuisance under California law. Because the significant public benefits achieved were very high, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court awarding fees where plaintiffs personal benefit outweighed the litigation costs. 14.) ), Posted at 06:46 PM in Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5) | Permalink However, there are several elements they must surmount, including a paramount concern that they vindicated a significant benefit on behalf of the public or a large class of persons. 2 Mar. If the private nuisance causes physical injury or harm to the plaintiff, the injury victims may be able to file a personal injury lawsuit (in addition to the private nuisance claim). Early appealed and the Third District affirmed. A civil action may be brought in the name of the people of the State of California to abate a public nuisance, as defined in Section 3480 of the Civil Code, by the district attorney or county counsel of any county in which the nuisance exists, or by the city attorney of any town or city in which the nuisance exists. H045884 (6th Dist. In Committee to Defend, the trial court set forth two factors for trial courts to consider when determining whether the services of a private party were necessary where the Attorney General performs its function whether the private party advanced significant factual or legal theories adopted by the court which were nonduplicative of those advanced by the governmental entity; and whether the private party produced substantial evidence significantly contributing to the courts judgment which was not produced by the governmental entity, and which was neither duplicative of nor merely cumulative to the evidence produced by the governmental entity. Inverse Condemnation (Cal. 22, 2021) (unpublished), as often is the case, the case ultimately came down to who wins attorneys fees. In no action, administrative proceeding or special proceeding shall an award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing party exceed the amount of reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the City in the action or proceeding. 14]. A private nuisance case must also generally consider the balancing-test factors that weigh the seriousness of harm against the public benefit. Plaintiff appealed in Water Audit Cal. Janice may lose the lawsuit because she had consented to planting the tree and now was complaining that the tree was the cause of her loss of use of her property. Posted at 08:08 AM in Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5) | Permalink Posted at 08:08 PM in Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5) | Permalink July 22, 2022) (unpublished). But, it noted that there was a broad spectrum of public nuisance cases that could implicate both civil and criminal liability. 3 Sept. 22, 2021) (unpublished) is a situation where certain litigants won CCP 1021.5 fees after prevailing on a regional water board dispute. E075523 (4th Dist., Div. Comments (0). v. Nevada Irrigation Dist., Case No. Given these ranges of uncertainty, the section 1021.5 fees expenditures certainly were way beyond what plaintiff could have recovered personally in this casegiven the analysis is not a post facto review. Here, the trial court decision to order a reduced fee request was warranted based on an objective, costs-benefit analysis under Whitley. (Code Civ. 4 filed Aug. 2, 2022; posted Aug. 3, 2022) (published), a group of Malibu homeowners successfully prevailed in an assessment validation proceeding against District under Proposition 218, a determination affirmed on appeal. Exchange (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 367, People v. Oliver (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 885, Wilson v. Southern California Edison Co. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 123. hoarding animals causing foul odors and health hazards. Compensatory damages in a California personal injury claim can include an award for: Note that if the defendant is violating an ordinance, than the local city attorney can also prosecute the defendant for a crime. In Boppana v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. of Water Resources Environmental Impact Cases, Case No. After all, Becerras successful defense did not guarantee that he would be elected and gain the pecuniary benefits associated with being Attorney General only that his name remained on the ballot. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the trial court erred when it denied his postappeal motion for attorney fees because: (1) his action resulted in the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest, (2) his action conferred significant benefits on a large group of people, and (3) the necessity and burden of private enforcement made a fee award appropriate. Example: On a hot summer day, Michael asked his neighbor, Janice, what she thought of Michael planting a maple tree along their real property line to provide shade for their homes. The problem was that Valley Water could not hurdle the, On appeal, the costs and fee rulings were all affirmed. 304699 et al. Was a danger or fire hazard to the plaintiffs property; That this condition interfered with the plaintiffs use or enjoyment of his or her land; That the plaintiff did not consent to the defendants conduct; That an ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by the defendants conduct; That the defendants conduct was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs harm; and. That award was affirmed on appeal. A lawsuit can seek an injunction to prohibit the defendant from continuing the nuisance activity. Contrary to defendants contention, the trial court was not required to deduct the initial $500,000 in fees paid by plaintiffs insurance policy as trial courts may award fees regardless of who paid the fees, and plaintiff did not receive a double recovery as, pursuant to its insurance policy, it had to reimburse its insurer from any damage award. Plaintiffs post-appeal motion for fees was not a repeat of the original fees motion that was denied and not appealed, and the resulting published opinion from plaintiffs defense of the trial courts judgment in the first appeal conveyed a significant benefit on a large group of people. 2d 698, 706. section 1021.5. The trial court also denied on the basis that plaintiff provided no apportionment between fees that pertained solely to plaintiffs private interests and those that advanced the public interest. 4 Sept. 17, 2021) (unpublished) did initially prevail in a dispute with the Commission over approval of several 10-year mineral extraction leases that authorized real party in interest Hanson to dredge mine sand from under the San Francisco Bay. The total fees came close to $2.2 million, assuming our math is correct in this opinion. We wish her well. What happened in this one was that plaintiffs won greenhouse gas, fire, safety, air quality, and affordable housing issues in successfully setting aside EIR and project approvals for the Countys development project. The lower court denied plaintiffs request for $1,541,000 in private attorney general fees under CCP 1021.5. (Code Civ. . Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes, a free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. Under an objective costs-benefit analysis, plaintiff demonstrated enough of a range to show that his expenditure in fees deserved section 1021.5 compensation, especially given the uncertainties in outcome: plaintiffs potential upside was $141,000 if he did not decide to abandon his well as a source of groundwater or at least a $59,000 property loss if he did abandon much less puruse an extraction permit including possibly more loss of property value. For example, even if a smell is not a danger to health, noxious of offensive smells may prevent a property owner from enjoying the use of their property. . Multipliers, Private Attorney General, Special Fee Shifting Statutes: The 1/5 DCA Affirms $2,961,264.29 Fees And Costs Award, Inclusive Of A 1.4 Multiplier, To Prevailing Plaintiff In Action For Violations Of A Conservation Easement, Private Attorney General: Even Though CHP Violated Detainee Policy On Medical Treatment, The Result Was Factually Sensitive Such That CCP 1021.5 Fees Were Properly Denied, Appeal Sanctions, Private Attorney General: 4/1 DCA Denies Requests For Appeal Sanctions And Private Attorney General Fees To Derivative Action Plaintiffs That Were Successful In Proving Former President/CEOs Breach Of Fiduciary Duty, Private Attorney General: No Abuse of Discretion In Trial Courts Denial Of 1021.5 Fees To Prevailing Plaintiff Couple In Mandamus Action Compelling The City Of Los Angeles To Revoke Permit Issued To Neighbor, Allocation, Employment, Mulitpliers, Private Attorney General: 1/1 DCA Reverses $2,905,200 In PAGA Penalties Against Defendant, But Affirms $7,793,030 In Attorney Fees Inclusive Of A 2.0 Multiplier, Cases Under Review, Private Attorney General: Doe v. Regents Opinion Depublished, Allocation, Private Attorney General: Doe v. Westmont College Is Now A Published Decision, Private Attorney General: $69,718 In 1021.5 Attorney Fees Awarded To Attorney General Xavier Becerra After Defeating Petition To Have His Name Removed From The November 2018 Election Affirmed On Appeal, Allocation, Private Attorney General: Trial Courts Application Of The Wrong Standard And Inappropriate Basis For Denying Prevailing Plaintiffs Postappeal Section 1021.5 Motion For Fees Necessitated Remand. Litigants which win some relief against a municipality may be entitled to private attorney general fees under CCP 1021.5. When visiting, the birds would sing and chirp throughout the day. Plaintiffs win had benefited all the districts customers, not just plaintiff, through the abandonment of its deficient rate structurea significant nonpecuniary benefit to others. That the seriousness of the harm outweighs the public benefit of the defendants conduct. Alan decided he wanted to make his own hot sauce. Petitioner in San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. Cal. The problem for plaintiffs was that the CHP did have a policy on medical detention, which was violated under unique facts where the decedent concealed what he had ingested. Years later, the tree had almost doubled in size. | The law generally allows for (1) loss of value; (2) discomfort, annoyance and distress; and (3) exemplary damages where proven. 2 Apr. County argued that the fee award had to be reversed and remanded based on the limited reversal later by 4/1 DCA. 7 March 12, 2021) (unpublished). Private Attorney General: $118,089.00 Fee Award For Litigant Partially Prevailing On CEQA Claim Affirmed On Appeal, Private Attorney General: 4/2 DCA Reverses Private Attorney General Fee Denial In Housing Plan Dispute With City Of Desert Hot Springs, Remanding For Determination Of Amount To Be Awarded, Private Attorney General: Fees Properly Denied Where Trial and Appellate Court Had Skepticism That Lawsuit Inspired Changes On Water Rates, Private Attorney General: $2.2 Million Fee Award To Various Parties Reversed, Private Attorney General: Petitioner Winning First Round Of San Francisco Bay Mineral Extraction Lease Dispute, Getting Paid Under A Settlement, Did Not Get Any Further CCP 1021.5 Fees By Failing To Succeed In The Second Phase, Private Attorney General, POOF! Direct Action Everywhere SF Bay Area etc. C088987 (3d Dist. With that said, the matter was remanded to look at a higher out-of-town hourly rate, but that did not detract from affirmed conclusions that the lodestar fee request was inflated for lack of preparation by plaintiffs counsel at some junctures of the litigation, billing for political activities, billing for travel to conferences which could have been attended telephonically instead, billing for ministerial tasks, billing for unrelated administrative proceedings not expressly allowable under FEHA (see K.I. There is an important difference between state and federal attorney's fees recovery statutes - under federal law, the Court cannot apply a multiplier of the In California DUI Lawyers Assn. On the routine costs side, the lower courts rulings were correct, reminding litigants and practitioners that court reporter costs are recoverable (even if the transcript costs are not) and deposition costs for witnesses not testifying at trial are allowable in the lower courts discretion. Comments (0). | Additionally, the panel found that plaintiffs failure to apportion fees between those that advanced his private interests and those that advanced the public interest was not an appropriate basis for denial with the award of attorney fees being an obligation if the party seeking fees has met the criteria for the award, and the trial court having the broad discretion to apportion such fees if the seeking party is not able to do so. Michael refused to cut the tree down and Janice filed a private nuisance civil action. The main problem was that Southern Mono submitted evidence that it would lose $780,000 in hard costs, monthly lease payments of $8500 with no recoupment ability, and would lose lots of business. Posted at 06:21 PM in Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5) | Permalink Eventually, plaintiff couple successfully filed a petition for writ of mandate to compel the City of Los Angeles to revoke other neighbors permit for a fence, gate and wall the neighbor had built along his front yard and a public right-of-way situated between the dueling neighbors properties.

Ode Safe Account License Renewal, John Wick 2 Sommelier, Kiss Pinball Machine For Sale Craigslist, Dark Cognac Shell Cordovan, Articles C