Public Pensions – Entitlement, Loss & Forfeiture

Useful Rulings on Government Pensions

Recent Rulings on Government Pensions

SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Code § 31451.) 2 In 2013, the Legislature enacted the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA). (§ 7522.) PEPRA members are generally public employees who began working after January 1, 2013. (§ 7522.04.) As described above, those employees hired prior to January 1, 2013 are considered 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all future statutory references are to the Government Code.

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2019

JANE DOE ET AL VS CITY OF BURBANK ET AL

Employee Pension Plan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493.) The filing of a claim under the Claims Act must be pleaded in the Complaint. (See Hopper v. Allen (1968) 266, Cal.App.2d 797, 799 [holding that failure to plead the filing of a claim or an excuse from filing barred suit against public official].) Burbank once again argues that all claims in the TAC are barred by the statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2019

SAM WALKER CPA INC VS THE DEPT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS CA BOARD

Walker did not include a pension fund 10% early withdrawal penalty, even though the plan administrator included the early withdrawal code a “1” in Box 7 of Form 1099-R. AR 2591. Walker did not include as income on the federal return the California state tax refund Lanspa received in 2011. AR 2591. Walker did not take responsibility for the errors. AR 2591.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2019

CITY OF OAKLAND A CHARTER CITY VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANACE

Thus, DOF was not required to treat the City’s pension obligations as ORSA’s enforceable obligations. 7 Petitioners’ equitable estoppel argument fails as well. First, estoppel does not apply to the government if the estoppel would defeat a strong public policy. (See City of Brentwood, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at 504.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2019

CITY OF OAKLAND A CHARTER CITY VS. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANACE

Thus, DOF was not required to treat the City's pension obligations as ORSA's enforceable obligations.^ Petitioners' equitable estoppel argument fails as well. First, estoppel does not apply to the government if the estoppel would defeat a strong public policy. (See City of Brentwood, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at 504.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2019

KING VS STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Among these protected rights are vested pension rights. (Betts v. Board of Administration of Public Employees' Retirement System (1978) 21 Cal.3d 859, 863, 148 Cal.Rptr. 158, 582 P.2d 614 [a pension right, once it has vested, cannot be destroyed without impairing a contractual obligation]; Kern v. City of Long Beach (1947) 29 Cal.2d 848, 853, 179 P.2d 799 [same].) Deputy Sheriffs' Assn., 233 Cal.App.4th at 578–579. Significantly, the authority Plaintiff relies on, Kern v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 03, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

PIPPA ANN STEWART VS. BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSING

Pursuant to Government Code section 11513, subdivision (d), hearsay evidence may be used in an administrative hearing “for the purpose of supplementing or explaining other evidence but over timely objection shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions.”

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2019

JOANA DAVID V. QUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER

Second, Labor Code section 218.5 provides: In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, the court shall award 1 Plaintiff’s reliance on the holding of Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist. (2015) 61 Cal.4th 97 is misplaced.

  • Hearing

    Jun 21, 2019

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES VS SAMKO, LLC, ET AL.

County argues Government Code §835 does not provide an employer with the right to sue for workers’ compensation benefits paid to its employees who were purportedly injured by a dangerous condition of public property. (Demurrer, pp. 3-4). County argues Government Code §835 instead contemplates and provides for liability related to the “risk of injury to a plaintiff who is using such property.” (Demurrer, p. 4). In effect, County argues that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue under Government Code §835.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHNSTON VS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

By statute, Plaintiffs’ pension formulas are defined. Government Code §§ 21363 and 21363.8 define retirement benefits for state peace officers. Section 21363 provides for a 2.5% benefit at 55 years of age.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2019

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

    Jun 13, 2019

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

    May 30, 2019

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PIER ANGELA SPACCIA VS CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMEN

Code section 7522.72 et seq. to forfeit a portion of Spaccia’s pension and health benefits. The FAP further alleges that CalPERS has criminally forfeited a portion of her pension and health benefits under Govt. Code section 7522.72 based on multiple felony convictions, but the convictions occurred after Spaccia’s retirement in October 2010 and are unconstitutional.

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

KIM ELIZABETH PAVEK VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

As a result, Pavek has lost income, on-call pay, overtime pay, a take home car, pension, and other privileges and benefits. (FAC, ¶ 22.) Pavek’s ability to advance or be promoted within the Department, as well as Pavek’s ability to obtain employment outside the County has also been negatively impacted. (FAC, ¶¶ 22-23.)

  • Hearing

    May 17, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MICHAEL LESLIE PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL VS DEPT OF REC & PARKS

Nor does City provide any explanation as to why the doctrines should not apply to government tort claims. Although City relies on language from City of Stockton v.

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2019

MATT WOLTHER V. SHUBHAN MAHESHWARI, ET AL.

Tenn. 2013) 947 F.Supp.2d 882, 887 [declining to impose “a heightened pleading standard with regard to knowledge” in an Item 303 case; noting that even under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), knowledge may be alleged generally]; but see Firefighters Pension & Relief Fund of the City of New Orleans v. Bulmahn (E.D.

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2019

JANE DOE ET AL VS CITY OF BURBANK ET AL

Employee Pension Plan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493.) The filing of a claim under the Claims Act must be pleaded in the Complaint. (See Hopper v. Allen (1968) 266, Cal.App.2d 797, 799 [holding that failure to plead the filing of a claim or an excuse from filing barred suit against public official].) Burbank argues that all claims in the Complaint are barred by the statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Apr 03, 2019

SABRENA ODOM VS LOS ANGELES COUMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ET A

City and County of San Francisco (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1139, 1155 [holding that “elimination of the requirement that officers must exhaust their administrative remedies before pursuing judicial relief for asserted POBRA violations does not eliminate the statutory claim filing requirements under the Government Claims Act.”].) Thus the provisions of Labor Code § 244 do not absolve Odom of the necessity of filing a government tort claim before suing in court.

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

TAE UK HAN V. CHATTINGCAT, INC.

RPD Nos. 8-12 ask Kim to produce: “[a]ll business licenses of CHATCAT, including any business licenses issued by any foreign government agency”; “[a]ll special permits of CHATCAT, including any business licenses issued by any foreign government agency”; “[a]ll certificates of registration of CHATCAT”; “[a]ll stock certificates of CHATCAT”; and “[a]ll MATERIAL AGREEMENTS of CHATCAT.” In response to the requests, Kim objected on the grounds of relevance, overbreadth, undue burden, vagueness, and ambiguity.

  • Hearing

    Mar 14, 2019

ERNEST H MORENO VS. CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM

When an administrative decision substantially affects a fundamental vested right, such as a public employee's pension, the independent judgment standard of review applies. (Harlow v. Carleson (1976) 16 Cal.3d 731.) The independent judgment test mandates that the court review the entire record and Weigh the evidence to determine whether the decision of the administrative agency was correct. (Interstate Brands v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1980) 26 Cal.3d 770, 775, n.2.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

ERNEST H MORENO VS. CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM

When an administrative decision substantially affects a fundamental vested right, such as a public employee’s pension, the independent judgment standard of review applies. (Harlow v. Carleson (1976) 16 Cal.3d 731.) The independent judgment test mandates that the court review the entire record and weigh the evidence to determine whether the decision of the administrative agency was correct. (Interstate Brands v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1980) 26 Cal.3d 770, 775, n.2.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2019

MATTHEW DABABNEH VS. CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY

The action challenged consists of charging the District more for certain pension contributions than the District believes is appropriate.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

MATTHEW DABABNEH VS. CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY

The action challenged consists of charging the District more for certain pension contributions than the District believes is appropriate. This is not governmental action which is speech- related. (San Ramon, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 357 [emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

MATTHEW DABABNEH VS. CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY

The action challenged consists of charging the District more for certain pension contributions than the District believes is appropriate.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

MATTHEW DABABNEH VS. CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY

The action challenged consists of charging the District more for certain pension contributions than the District believes is appropriate. This is not governmental action which is speech- related. (San Ramon, supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 357 [emphasis added].)

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 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.