Public Pensions – Entitlement, Loss & Forfeiture

Useful Rulings on Government Pensions

Recent Rulings on Government Pensions

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

WARE V. RAMOS

or retirement plan or a government benefits program, or assets essential to the health or welfare of the senior citizen or disabled person”; or 3) whether the senior citizens or disabled persons at issue “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

    Dec 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

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

    Nov 27, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

KRINITT VS. DR. DAVID ASHKENAZE

or retirement plan or a government benefits program, or assets essential to the health or welfare of the senior citizen or disabled person. (3) a senior citizen or disabled person is 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

    Nov 21, 2019

MORTON V. SADDLEBACK COLLEGE

Employee Pension Plan (Canova) (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493.) California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Bd. Of South Orange County Community College Dist. (CSEA) (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 574, 589, provides, “Unless a specific exception applies, ‘[a] suit for “money or damages” includes all actions where the plaintiff is seeking monetary relief, regardless whether the action is founded in “ ‘tort, contract or some other theory.’ ” ’ [Citation.]”

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2019

NEVADA POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

For the reasons stated below, however, the Court tentatively concludes that, pursuant to Government Code section 20230, whether a particular retiree is receiving service or disability retirement benefits is confidential and need not be tentative mling at the hearing. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The facts are quite simple. Petitioner submitted a PRA request to CalPERS seeking a copy of its "2016 pension payout report."

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

NEVADA POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

“The public is, of course, interested in knowing the total amount of pension payments, but it also has a legitimate interest in knowing how pensions are calculated. The [PRA’s] core purpose is to prevent secrecy in government and contribute significant to the public understanding of government activities.” (Id. at 1244, italics added.) “[T]he disclosure of pension information provides information about the government’s management of public funds, in which the public has a legitimate interest.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 25, 2019

XXXXXXXXXXXX, AN INDIVIDUAL VS RICHARD SANDOVAL, A CALIFORNIA INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

In the 5th cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that he was retaliated against because he asserted his rights under Government Code, §12900 et seq. and this was the substantial motivating reason for Grill and Spire’s decision to terminate him. (FAC, ¶¶81-82.) However, it is unclear what rights he asserted under the Government Code that became a substantial motivating reason for his termination.

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

REGINALD GILL VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(Local Rule 1.12 and Government Code § 68086.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

REGINALD GILL VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

(Local Rule 1.12 and Government Code § 68086.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 07, 2019

PRESERVATION OF BENEFIT PLAN RETIREES ASSOCIATION, ET AL. V. CITY OF SAN JOSE, ET AL.

the pension must be made to 21 maintain tax-qualified status.

  • Hearing

    Oct 05, 2019

MARKO VLADISLAVICH V. JAMES L. DAWSON, ET AL.

Under the Carpenters Master Agreement and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Title 29 of the Unites States Code sections 1001, et seq (“ERISA”), Decedent was required to make pension benefit contributions to the Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California.

  • Hearing

    Sep 12, 2019

MITRA RASHTI VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Board of Pension Commissioners, (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 532, 539. Because of well recognized public policy favoring the employment and utilization of physically handicapped persons, if a person is not disabled to a degree which prevents him from serving in any position in a department or agency, he should not be retired with payment of a disability pension. Id. at 540; Craver v. City of Los Angeles, (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 76, 80.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SANCHEZ V. CITY OF COALINGA

State of California, supra, 18 Cal.3d at p. 814 [finding plaintiff’s reliance on cases regarding pension rights of public employees in seeking to press a contractual right of tenure was “misplaced,” and affirming that “the courts of this state have refused to hold, in the absence of special provision, that public employment establishes tenure rights,” even while uniformly holding that pension laws establish contractual rights].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2019

  « first    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.