Public Pensions – Entitlement, Loss & Forfeiture

Useful Rulings on Government Pensions

Recent Rulings on Government Pensions

MARIELOU MENDOZA VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET AL

The Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleges: Violations of California Health & Safety Code § 1278.5; Violation of California Government Code § 12940(j)- Race Discrimination; Violation of California Government Code § 12940(j)- Age Discrimination; Violation of California Government Code § 12940(K)- Hostile Work Environment Retaliation in Violation of Government Code § 12940; Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Defamation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

KIMIKO LEITZ VS ARTHUR NATVIG DDS ET AL

(2) Whether the defendant’s conduct caused one or more senior citizens or disabled persons to suffer: loss or encumbrance of a primary residence, principal employment, or source of income; substantial loss of property set aside for retirement, or for personal or family care and maintenance; or substantial loss of payments received under a pension or retirement plan or a government benefits program, or assets essential to the health or welfare of the senior citizen or disabled person.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

JOSE FERNANDEZ VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

The issue in this case is whether CalPERS properly determined his final compensation. 2 The Court upholds most of CalPERS’s determination, but 1 PERL is found at Government Code sections 20000 et seq., and further undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code. 2 The difference between the two sides is significant, although not entirely clear.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JOSE FERNANDEZ VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

.^ The Court upholds most of CalPERS's determination, but ' PERL is found at Government Code sections 20000 et seq., and ftirther undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code. ^ The difference between the two sides is significant, although not entirely clear. If the Court understands it correctly, Fernandez contends his final compensation was $326,796 per year, while CalPERS determined it was approximately $206,000.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SOBERTEC LLC VS. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC

ERISA is a comprehensive federal law designed to promote the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee pension and benefit plans. Port Med. Wellness, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 153, 171. As a part of this integrated regulatory system, Congress enacted various safeguards to preclude abuse and to secure the rights and expectations that ERISA brought into being. Ibid.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

DONALD J. BIENVENU, SR. VS FCA US LLC, ET AL.

or retirement plan or a government benefits program, or assets essential to the health or welfare of the senior citizen or disabled person. (3) Whether one or more senior citizens or disabled persons are substantially more vulnerable than other members of the public to the defendant’s conduct because of age, poor health or infirmity, impaired understanding, restricted mobility, or disability, and actually suffered substantial physical, emotional, or economic damage resulting from the defendant’s conduct.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THOMPSON VS. COFIROUTE USA, LLC

The first cause of action for declaratory relief is not subject to the requirements of the Government Claims Act. (See Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation Dist. Employee Pension Plan (2006) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493.) If a government entity rejects a claim for money or damages, the claimant has six months from the date of rejection to file suit. (Gov. Code, § 945.6(a)(1).) As noted above, Thompson’s claims were denied on March 20, 2019 (RCTC) and April 15, 2019 (OCTA).

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

SKOGEBO VS. COFIROUTE USA, LLC

Employee Pension Plan (2006) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493.) Initially, OCTA argues that Skogebo’s claim is barred because, as set forth above, he only filed a pre-suit claim with RCTC, not OCTA. Skogebo argues that as an absent member of the class described in Thakur’s claim to OCTA, he is entitled to rely on Thakur’s claim to demonstrate compliance with the Government Claims Act.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

MARCELLO CODOG VS. SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

It has been held . . . that an employer takes his employee as he finds him, and therefore any acceleration or aggravation [i.e., by the employment] of a preexisting disability becomes a service-connected injury of that employment [citations], and that an applicant for a government retirement pension will be awarded service-connected benefits where he or she can show a material and traceable connection between disability

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

MARCELLO CODOG VS. SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

It has been held ... that an employer takes his employee as he finds him, and therefore any acceleration or aggravation [i.e., by the employment] of a preexisting disability becomes a service-connected injury of that employment [citations], and that an applicant for a government retirement pension will be awarded service-connected benefits where he or she can show a material and traceable connection between disability and

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

Spannaus, the Court held that the Minnesota pension law severely impaired established contractual relations between employers and employees. The State had not acted to meet an important general social problem. The pension statute had a very narrow focus: it was aimed at specific employers. Indeed, it even may have been directed at one particular employer planning to terminate its pension plan when its collective-bargaining agreement expired.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

Spannaus, the Court held that the Minnesota pension law severely impaired established contractual relations between employers and employees. The State had not acted to meet an important general social problem. The pension statute had a very narrow focus: it was aimed at specific employers. Indeed, it even may have been directed at one particular employer planning to terminate its pension plan when its collective-bargaining agreement expired.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

BBB BONDING CORPORATION VS ASHLEY PILLING-MILLER ET AL

Footnote 1: This Department intends to comply with the time requirements of the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Government Code, §§ 68600–68620). The California Rules of Court state that the goal of each trial court should be to manage limited and unlimited civil cases from filing so that 100 percent are disposed of within 24 months. (Ca. St. Civil Rules of Court, Rule 3.714(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2)(C).

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

IAN MCCRAY V. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

San Francisco Public Library Com. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 109, 114 [ordinance]; Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1016, 1037 [voter initiative].) Where there is ambiguity in the language of a voter initiative, “ ‘[b]allot summaries and arguments may be considered when determining the voters’ intent and understanding of a ballot measure.’ ” (Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1037, quoting Legislature v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

ANNETTE BEBICH ET AL VS GEORGE MATSUMOTO ET AL

Plaintiffs request an assignment order of Defendant’s pension benefits that is being directed to Defendant that amount to approximately $3,000 per month. The Court finds the assignment order appropriate and Defendant does not oppose. CONCLUSION The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion for an assignment order. Plaintiffs are to provide notice of this order.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

Enforceable obligation means, among other things: “[O]bligations imposed by state law . . . or legally enforceable payments required in connection with the [RDA’s] employees, including, but not limited to, pension payments . . . . [; and a]ny legally binding and enforceable agreement or contract that is not otherwise void as violating the debt limit or public policy.” (§ 34171, subds. (d)(1)(C), (E).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

NOWICKI VS. CCC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

Petitioner’s Claim That the Administrative Proceedings Lacked Due Process Petitioner contends his pension rights are fundamental vested rights. “It has long been established that retirement benefit rights…are vested.” (Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Ret. Ass'n (1974) 11 Cal.3d 28, 45.) The deprivation of a public employee's vested pension invokes a property right, the taking of which may constitute a denial of Due Process. (Hipsher v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

REGINALD GILL VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(Local Rule 1.12 and Government Code § 68086.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

ALEXANDRA A. HIGGINS VS LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

Defendant further objects that the claims invade the privacy of third parties, that the information sought is protected from disclosure by the Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act, and that the information is privileged pursuant to the Deliberative Process Privilege under Government Code §§ 6254-6255.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

EDWARD G. EVERETT, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Government Claims Act Respondents note that Petitioners both have retired and fully repaid the County and argue that damages now are their only remedy. Yet, Petitioners have failed to establish compliance with the Government Claims Act (“Claims Act”). Even if this mandamus petition is considered a wage claim, it is subject to the Claims Act if there is a local ordinance so stating. Govt. Code §§ 905(c), 935. The County has such an ordinance. Los Angeles County Code §§4.04.020-030.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ORANGE COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM VS AL MIJARES, ET AL.

The Board also shall have the sole and exclusive fiduciary responsibility over the assets of the retirement system and the sole and exclusive power to provide for actuarial services in order to assure the competency of the assets of the public pension or retirement system. Cal. Const. Art. XVI §17.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

TAYLOR VS DMCG INC

FCS' costs bill is stricken, as FCS has failed to demonstrate it is entitled to recovery of costs pursuant to Government Code section 12965(b) and Labor Code section 218.5.

  • Hearing

    Jan 16, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ANGELA MARTINEZ, ET AL. VS PANDA RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., ET AL.

One must read the statute with companion provisions of the Government Code and correctly interpret legislative intent in order to understand the more expansive meaning the Legislature assigned to the term. Thus, although Guillemin's contention lacks persuasive force, his motion was not frivolous and he was entitled to zealously argue the point.” Guillemin, at 168.

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2020

TERRI DIKES V. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT

Footnote 4: As Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant owed her any duty, the Court need not reach the arguments in the demurrer regarding government immunity

  • Hearing

    Dec 19, 2019

LUKE V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

There is simply no need for petitioner to obtain further discovery in this action to support his assertion that the pension increases were illegally adopted in the first place. Whether the underlying pension dispute petitioner has been litigating is complex, financially important or requires transparency is not relevant in this particular action.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2019

  • Judge

    Jennifer V

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.