Public Pensions – Entitlement, Loss & Forfeiture

Useful Rulings on Government Pensions

Recent Rulings on Government Pensions

101-125 of 210 results

INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY/FEDERAL BASE REUSE AUTHORITY VS. OSCAR VALDEZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER / TREASURER / TAX COLLECTOR

Enforceable obligation means, among other things: "[0]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

    Oct 19, 2018

INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY/FEDERAL BASE REUSE AUTHORITY VS. OSCAR VALDEZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AUDITOR-CONTROLLER / TREASURER / TAX COLLECTOR

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

    Oct 19, 2018

IN RE MCAFEE, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION (CONSOLIDATED ACTION) (FORMERLY GREENBERG V. MCAFEE)

(Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 12, 2018

BALAKANAPATHY RAJARATNAM V. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND

Bd. of Pension Comrs. (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 836, 847.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 20, 2018

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

GABRIELA GREEN VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Pursuant to Government Code section 21192, CalPERS re-examined Petitioner to determine if she was still disabled for purposes of receiving disability retirement benefits. That statute provides in pertinent part: The examination shall be made by a physician or surgeon, appointed by the [CalPERS] board….

  • Hearing

    Sep 07, 2018

BATIS VS. CCC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

The California Constitution proclaims “[T]he retirement board of a public pension or retirement system shall have plenary authority and fiduciary responsibility for investment of moneys and administration of the system.” (Cal. Const, Art. XVI § 17.) Moreover, The retirement board of a public pension or retirement system shall have the sole and exclusive fiduciary responsibility over the assets of the public pension or retirement system.

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2018

JACOB "HAGOP" PARSEGHIAN, ET AL VS. JASSIK VARTANIAN, 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

    Aug 24, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DANA NAVA VS CITY OF ARCADIA

Benson examined an appellant’s assertion that she was entitled to a widow’s pension from the appellee city. 60 Cal.2d at 357. In holding that she was entitled to this pension, the Benson court noted: “It is established that pension rights of a municipal employee are an integral part of his earnings.” Id. at 359. Mass evaluated a defunct section of the Education Code which provided that employees entitled to reinstatement following a suspension “shall be paid full salary.” 61 Cal.2d at 623.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2018

SMADAR REES VS MARIAN PODPORA ET AL

(See id. at p. 821 [“Here, as we have seen, the statutory time limitation upon the right to sue for each pension instalment commences to run from the time when that instalment falls due. It follows that even though plaintiffs might have earlier brought suit for declaratory relief . . . their failure to do so does not operate to bar their right to declaratory relief with respect to future pension payments”].)

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2018

VARGAS VS VU

For the reasons set forth herein, the court finds Sec. 35 of SB 866, amending Government Code § 23725, is in violation of Article IV, § 9 of the California Constitution. Pursuant to Article IV, § 9, Sec. 35 of SB 866 and Government Code § 23725 are void. The only relief Petitioner seeks is with respect to Sec. 35 of SB 866 and Government Code § 23725.

  • Hearing

    Aug 09, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

SDCERA's refusal is based on its interpretation of Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 ("PEPRA"), particularly Government Code section 7522.02(d). SDCERA asserts that the Tier D formula must receive approval by the Legislature before SDCERA may implement it and that Plaintiff and Petitioner County of San Diego ("County") has not yet obtained approval by the Legislature.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

SDCERA's refusal is based on its interpretation of Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 ("PEPRA"), particularly Government Code section 7522.02(d). SDCERA asserts that the Tier D formula must receive approval by the Legislature before SDCERA may implement it and that Plaintiff and Petitioner County of San Diego ("County") has not yet obtained approval by the Legislature.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

SDCERA's refusal is based on its interpretation of Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 ("PEPRA"), particularly Government Code section 7522.02(d). SDCERA asserts that the Tier D formula must receive approval by the Legislature before SDCERA may implement it and that Plaintiff and Petitioner County of San Diego ("County") has not yet obtained approval by the Legislature.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

SDCERA's refusal is based on its interpretation of Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 ("PEPRA"), particularly Government Code section 7522.02(d). SDCERA asserts that the Tier D formula must receive approval by the Legislature before SDCERA may implement it and that Plaintiff and Petitioner County of San Diego ("County") has not yet obtained approval by the Legislature.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

SDCERA's refusal is based on its interpretation of Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 ("PEPRA"), particularly Government Code section 7522.02(d). SDCERA asserts that the Tier D formula must receive approval by the Legislature before SDCERA may implement it and that Plaintiff and Petitioner County of San Diego ("County") has not yet obtained approval by the Legislature.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO VS SAN DIEGO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

SDCERA's refusal is based on its interpretation of Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 ("PEPRA"), particularly Government Code section 7522.02(d). SDCERA asserts that the Tier D formula must receive approval by the Legislature before SDCERA may implement it and that Plaintiff and Petitioner County of San Diego ("County") has not yet obtained approval by the Legislature.

  • Hearing

    Aug 02, 2018

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JUAN NUNEZ VS MERIBEAR PRODUCTIONS INC ET AL

Bankers Pension Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 550, 557.) Under the primary rights theory, the invasion of one primary right gives rise to a single cause of action, which consists of (1) a primary right possessed by the plaintiff, (2) a corresponding primary duty owed by the defendant, and (3) a delict or wrong by the defendant which consists in a breach of the primary right and corresponding duty. (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 30, 2018

RADU MISCHIU, M.D. VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

(Local Rule 1.12 and Government Code § 68086.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2018

LUKE V. SONOMA COUNTY

However, it is unclear what relief Petitioner is seeking in relation to the alleged violation of Government Code section 54954.3. Presumably he is seeking relief pursuant to Government Code section 54960(a), “to determine the applicability of this chapter to past actions of the legislative body.” If so, he has failed to allege compliance with the “cease and desist” prerequisites imposed by Government Code section 54960.2. Accordingly, the demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2018

LUKE V. SONOMA COUNTY

George Luke’s first amended petition for writ of mandate alleges Respondents violated Government Code sections 7507, 23026, 31515, 31515.5, and 31516 and breached their fiduciary duties when pension benefit increases were “implemented” by the County in 2003. Government Code sections 7507, 23026, 31515, 31515.5, and 31516 impose requirements on the County regarding public notice of proposed salary and benefit increases.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2018

COMFORT HEALTH THERAPY INC ET AL VS THE CITY OF SAN GABRIEL

Government Code section 905(f) provides an exemption for “applications or claims for money or benefits under any public retirement or pension system.” This exemption has been construed narrowly to “nontortious claims.” (Dalton v. East Bay Mun. Utility Dist. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1566, 1574.) Some courts have held that damages incidental to mandamus relief, in certain cases, are exempt from the claims-filing requirement.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2018

VERNALEA PANGA VS BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE LOS ANGELES COU

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

    May 24, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

PROMISE PUBLIC SCHOOLS, INC. V. SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Next, the printout from a government website showing District’s Test Result Comparison is not a proper subject of judicial notice. Promise fails to explain why the website site printout and its contents constitute an official act of a government agency. (See Schaeffer Land Trust v.

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2018

CITY OF LA VERNE VS ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER

City’s pension obligation is imposed by law. (Valdes v. Cory (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 773 – a public employee’s right to a pension is an element of compensation that cannot be taken away without violating the legal obligations of the employing agency); and City has no power to amend or change the retirement law, enacted by the State.

  • Hearing

    May 22, 2018

CITY OF LA VERNE VS ALL PERSONS INTERESTED IN THE MATTER

City’s pension obligation is imposed by law. (Valdes v. Cory (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 773 – a public employee’s right to a pension is an element of compensation that cannot be taken away without violating the legal obligations of the employing agency.) Thus, the bonds fall under an exception to Article XVI, Sec. 18, and do not require assent of 2/3 of the City’s electors.

  • Hearing

    May 22, 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.