11.	Commitments and Contingencies

Legal

From time to time, we are subject to various legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business.

On October 3, 2013, one husband and wife couple who were pre-IPO investors filed a putative class action purportedly brought on behalf of the investors in Rexford Industrial Fund III (“RIF III”) in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. On February 14, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint (as amended, the “RIF III and RIF IV Action”) adding an additional individual pre-IPO investor and putative class claims on behalf of investors in Rexford Industrial Fund IV, LLC (“RIF IV”). Plaintiffs in the RIF III and RIF IV Action assert claims against the Company, RIF III, RIF IV, RILLC and Messrs. Schwimmer, Frankel and Ziman for breach of fiduciary duty, violation of certain California securities laws, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the terms of the Company’s formation transactions were unfair to investors in RIF III and RIF IV, that the consideration received by investors in RIF III and RIF IV in the formation transactions was inadequate, that the pre-IPO management companies were allocated unfair value in the formation transactions and that the disclosure documents related to the formation transactions were materially misleading. The first amended complaint seeks class certification, requests to inspect the books and records of currently non-existent RIF III and RIF IV, and further seeks declaratory relief, unspecified recessionary damages, disgorgement, compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages, an accounting for unjust enrichment, and an award of costs including pre-judgment interest, attorneys’ and experts’ fees, and other unspecified relief. Plaintiffs also allege that the formal communication of the proposed accommodation (in which Messrs. Schwimmer, Frankel and Ziman, together with certain other pre-IPO owners of the pre-IPO management companies agreed to return up to $32.1 million that they received in connection with our IPO and formation transactions) was materially misleading by not including disclosures regarding the lawsuit and claims asserted by plaintiffs. While we believe that the RIF III and RIF IV Action is without merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously, we expect to incur costs associated with defending the RIF III and RIF IV Action. At this early stage of the litigation, the ultimate outcome of the RIF III and RIF IV Action is uncertain and we cannot reasonably assess the timing or outcome, or estimate the amount of loss, if any, or its effect, if any, on our financial statements.

Environmental

We monitor our properties for the presence of hazardous or toxic substances. While there can be no assurance that a material environmental liability does not exist, we are not currently aware of any environmental liability with respect to the properties that would have a material effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Further, we are not aware of any environmental liability or any unasserted claim or assessment with respect to an environmental liability that we believe would require additional disclosure or the recording of a loss contingency.

Rent Expense

As of March 31, 2014, we lease a parcel of land that is currently being sub-leased to a tenant for a parking lot. The ground lease is scheduled to expire on June 1, 2062.

The future minimum commitment under our ground lease and corporate office lease as of March 31, 2014 is as follows:

	Office Lease		Ground Rent
April 1, 2014 - December 31, 2014	$	151,000	$	108,000
2015		266,000		144,000
2016		274,000		144,000
2017		282,000		144,000
2018		291,000		144,000
Thereafter		173,000		6,252,000
Total	$	1,437,000	$	6,936,000

Tenant Related

As of March 31, 2014, we had commitments of $1.0 million for tenant improvement and construction work under the terms of leases with certain of our tenants.