Public Pensions – Entitlement, Loss & Forfeiture

Useful Rulings on Government Pensions

Recent Rulings on Government Pensions

76-100 of 212 results

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

CITY OF RIVERSIDE AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

obligations” include: Payments required by the federal government, preexisting obligations to the state or obligations imposed by state law, other than passthrough payments… or legally enforceable payments required in connection with the agencies’ employees, including, but not limited to, pension payments, pension obligation debt service, unemployment payments, or other obligations conferred through a collective bargaining agreement.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

CITY OF RIVERSIDE AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

obligations" include: Payments required by the federal government, preexisting obligations to the state or obligations imposed by state law, other than passthrough payments... or legally enforceable payments required in connection with the agencies' employees, including, but not limited to, pension payments, pension obligation debt sen/ice, unemployment payments, or other obligations conferred through a collective bargaining agreement.

  • Hearing

    Mar 01, 2019

INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY VS. SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

Enforceable obligation means, among other things: "[Ojbligations 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 othenwise void as violating the debt limit or public policy." (Health & Saf., Code, § 34171, subds. (d)(1)(C), (E).)

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

WEN HONG XIA VS GREEN GARDEN TRADING INC ET AL

Items 9-10 are official acts of a government entity and may be judicially noticed under Evidence Code (c). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Green Garden’s request for judicial notice with respect to these documents. B. Factual Background Plaintiff Wen Hong Xia a waitress at a restaurant in Monterey Park until March 2014. (Wang Decl., ¶ 2; Chang Decl., ¶ 5; Xia Decl. ¶ 7.) During that time, the restaurant was sold to two different corporations, one of which was Green Garden Trading, Inc.

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2019

ONSHORE TECHNOLOGIES INC VS LUMATIV INC

(e) When earnings or periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement plan are assigned pursuant to subdivision (a), the amount of the earnings or the periodic payments assigned shall not exceed the amount that may be withheld from a like amount of earnings under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 706.010) (Wage Garnishment Law).

  • Hearing

    Feb 13, 2019

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

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

Applicability of a Statutory Exception 4 Petitioners argue that, even if the Government Claims Act applies, their claims come 5 within the statutory exception for “[a]pplications or claims for money or benefits under any 6 public retirement or pension system” codified at Government Code section 905, subdivision (f). 7 Respondents dispute this point. 12 8 The statutory exceptions to the claim presentation requirement in Government Code 9 section 905 are strictly construed.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2019

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Costa’s Disability Retirement On April 20, 2017, the City’s Fire and Police Pension Board granted Costa a Tier 5 service-connected disability pension. Costa Decl. ¶5. 6. The Chief of Police’s Purported Decision On April 27, 2017, the Chief of Police signed the order of execution removing Costa from LAPD service. AR 1. The decision was served by mail on May 3, 2017. 7.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

JOHN D COSTA VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Costa’s Disability Retirement On April 20, 2017, the City’s Fire and Police Pension Board granted Costa a Tier 5 service-connected disability pension. Costa Decl. ¶5. 6. The Chief of Police’s Purported Decision On April 27, 2017, the Chief of Police signed the order of execution removing Costa from LAPD service. AR 1. The decision was served by mail on May 3, 2017. 7.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2019

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

LARRY QUISHENBERRY VS BERGER INC 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

    Jan 11, 2019

ALL OF US OR NONE LOS ANGELES CHAPTER ET AL VS SANTA MONICA

GOVERNMENT CLAIMS ACT Defendants next argue that all of AOUON’s claims must be dismissed because it never filed a claim with SMMUSD first, in compliance with the Government Claims Act. (Demurrer at p. 5.) Defendants also argue that Doe’s First Cause of Action for Breach of Labor Code § 432.7 and Fifth Cause of Action for Breach of Contract must be dismissed because Doe never named them in his own claim. (Demurrer at pp. 5–6.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 10, 2019

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

GUSTAVO GUTIERREZ VS LONNIE ROBERT VALENICA

Before Trial ¶ 9:1212, citing Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A–C Co. (9th Cir. 1988) 859 F2d 1336, 1344.) In other words, the statute, like its counterpart in the federal rules, is reserved for the exceptional case. Defendants move for sanctions on the grounds that Plaintiff’s Complaint is meritless and frivolous and was filed solely to harass Defendants and to waste judicial resources.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2019

FERNANDEZ VS. CCC EMPLOYEES

The Court finds the applicable statue for awarding attorney’s fees in this case is Government Code section 31536. The statute allows for an award of fees in the Court’s discretion. Although Petitioner ultimately prevailed, it was not the Court’s intention to award attorney’s fees. Respondent’s denial of Petitioner’s service-connected disability retirement pension was not done on the basis of arbitrary or capricious conduct or without a reasonable basis.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2019

ANDREA MAROSI ET AL VS LISA S EHRLICH ET AL

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), where an action is brought to recover actual or punitive damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the amount demanded shall not be stated, but the complaint shall comply with Section 422.30 and, in a limited civil case, with subdivision (b) of Section 70613 of the Government Code. CCP § 425.10.

  • Hearing

    Dec 18, 2018

REBECCA VENEGAS VS RAY PERRY

Plaintiff Rebecca Venegas (“plaintiff”) moves the court, per Government Code § 12965(b) and Labor Code § 218.5, for an order awarding her attorney’s fees in the amount of $25,900.00 as the prevailing party in this action. Plaintiff also seeks $1,760.00 in costs. “In civil actions brought under [FEHA], the court, in its discretion, may award to the prevailing party, including the department, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, including expert witness fees.” Government Code § 12965(b).

  • Hearing

    Dec 10, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 2-3, ET AL. V. THE CITY OF SAN JOSE, ET AL.

(e)(7)), as well as for charges for “a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted,” or “a specific government service or product” that is provided[] “directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government” (id., § 1, subd. (e)(1) & (2)).

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2018

EDWARD MARQUEZ VS LOS ANGELES COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT

Pension statutes must be liberally construed and applied to the end that the policy established thereby is accorded proper recognition. Dillard v. City of Los Angeles, (1942) 20 Cal.2d 559, 602. Disability and workers’ compensation are related in subject matter and harmonious in purpose. Therefore, courts look to workers’ compensation precedent for guidance when dealing with issues similar to disability pension law. Bowen, supra, 42 Cal.3d at 578, n.4. D. Statement of Facts 1.

  • Hearing

    Dec 04, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF HAYWARD VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

Enforceable obligation means, among other things: "[Ojbligations imposed by state l a w . . . or legally enforceable payments required in cormection 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

    Nov 30, 2018

CITY OF HAYWARD VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE 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

    Nov 30, 2018

RUTH HALLER AS TRUSTEE OF THE HALLER FAMILY TRUST VS. SEWARD

(e) When earnings or periodic payments pursuant to a pension or retirement plan are assigned pursuant to subdivision (a), the amount of the earnings or the periodic payments assigned shall not exceed the amount that may be withheld from a like amount of earnings under Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 706.010) (Wage Garnishment Law).

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MATT WOLTHER V. SHUBHAM MAHESHWARI, ET AL.

The named plaintiffs in these putative class actions—Matt Wolther (“Wolther”), Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund (“Iron Workers Fund”), and Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund–Lake County & Vicinity (“Construction Workers Fund”)—allege the conduct of defendant Veeco and certain of its officers and directors and certain of the former officers and directors of Ultratech —defendants Shubham Maheshwari, John R. Peeler, John P. Kiernan, Kathleen A. Bayless, Richard A.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

MATT WOLTHER V. SHUBHAM MAHESHWARI, ET AL.

The named plaintiffs in these putative class actions—Matt Wolther (“Wolther”), Iron Workers District Council of New England Pension Fund (“Iron Workers Fund”), and Construction Workers Pension Trust Fund–Lake County & Vicinity (“Construction Workers Fund”)—allege the conduct of defendant Veeco and certain of its officers and directors and certain of the former officers and directors of Ultratech —defendants Shubham Maheshwari, John R. Peeler, John P. Kiernan, Kathleen A. Bayless, Richard A.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2018

EDGAR L BORNE III VS THE CALIFORNIA BUREAU OF REAL ESTATE

Governing Law A surrendered real estate licensee may be relicensed only by petition for reinstatement pursuant to Government Code section 11522. Bus. & Prof. Code §10100.2. When deciding a petition for reinstatement, the Commissioner may consider all relevant evidence, including affidavits. Id. Tier 1 formal administrative hearings by state agencies are governed by the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), Chapter 5, Govt. Code[1] §§ 11500-11529.

  • Hearing

    Nov 13, 2018

ARNOLD JONATHAN MOLINA VS GENERAL MOTORS LLC

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

    Nov 05, 2018

DR PEPPER SNAPPLE GROUP VS. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

The ballot arguments in support of Proposition 59 explained: “Proposition 59 is about open and responsible government. A government that can hide what it does will never be accountable to the public it is supposed to serve. We need to know what the government is doing and how decisions are made in order to make government work for us.” (Ballot Pamp., Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2004), argument in favor of Prop. 59.) The people’s right to know, however, is not absolute.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2018

  « 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.