Public Pensions – Entitlement, Loss & Forfeiture

Useful Rulings on Government Pensions

Recent Rulings on Government Pensions

126-150 of 212 results

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

JESUS AGUILAR VS CIMAX HOME MORTGAGE

“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).” CCP § 708.510(e).

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

LA GINA EASLEY VS DON BOSCO TECHNICAL INSTITUTE

States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Golden Nugget, Inc. (C.D.Cal.1988) 697 F.Supp. 1538, 1558–1559 [noting more lenient California rule on time records in setting fees under Civ. Code, § 1717].) “Because time records are not required under California law ..., there is no required level of detail that counsel must achieve.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2018

ROCKEFELLER TECHONOLGY INVESTMENTS ASIA VII VS CHANGZHOU SIN

(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

    May 02, 2018

JEFFREY HUMBLE VS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES E

To be timely, a government claim for damages must be presented to the public entity within one year of the date the cause of action accrued. §911.2. The government claim requirement applies to any monetary claim even if it is merely incidental to other relief sought. Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation Distritc Employee Pension Plan, (“Canova”) (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1497.

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GOLKHAROUN KARAMI ET AL VS HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF

Section 8 Law The federal government provides rental assistance for low and moderate income families, the elderly, and the disabled through what is known as “the Section 8 program.” Congress added the Section 8 program to the United States Housing Act of 1937 in 1974 by enacting the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, Pub.L. No. 93-333, §201(a) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §14370).

  • Hearing

    Apr 24, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CITY OF ANAHEIM A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY VS. MICHEAL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

(Local Rule 1.12 and Government Code § 68086.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 20, 2018

MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC VS LOS GATOS

(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

    Apr 19, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GINA MCDOWELL VS LA COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION

Board of Pension Commissioners, (1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 532, 539. The employee need not be able to perform any and all duties performed by persons in their job category. 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.

  • Hearing

    Apr 19, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF L A COUNTY VS ALBERT ROBLES

Oakland, (“International”) (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 687, 694 (quo warranto challenge to city police and fire pension and compensation measures that had taken effect). A quo warranto action under CCP section 803 provides the sole means for a private citizen to challenge the unlawful holding of public office. Nicolopulos v. City of Lawndale, (“Nicolopulos”) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1225. Title to an office cannot be tried by mandamus, injunction, certiorari, or declaratory relief. Ibid.

  • Hearing

    Apr 17, 2018

CITY OF NORCO A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY VS. MICHAEL J COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOROF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

The term “enforceable obligation” includes “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.” (§ 34171, subd. (d)(1)(C).)

  • Hearing

    Apr 13, 2018

JAMES GIBBS V. MOUNTAIN VIEW LOS ALTOS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

In addition, Plaintiff has lost nine months of wages as well as medical benefits and substantial pension contributions the District would have otherwise made on his behalf. (Ibid.) On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint against the District setting forth the following causes of action: (1) disability discrimination in violation of Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (a); (2) failure to prevent discrimination in violation of Gov. Code, § 12940, subd. (k); (3) retaliation (Gov.

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2018

VALENTINA RODRIGUES VS. SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (SCERS)

STANDARD OF REVIEW A public employee’s right to pension and service-related disability benefits is a fundamental vested right. (Dickey v. Retirement Board (1976) 16 Cal.3d 745, 751; Meyers v. Board of Administration for the Federated City Employees Retirement Fund (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 250, 256.) The court thus exercises its independent judgment in examining the challenged decision. (Welch v. State Teachers’ Retirement System (2012) 203 Cal. App. 4th 1, 16.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2018

INLAND VALLEY DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, SUCCESSOR VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DRECTOR OF THE STATE OF 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

    Mar 09, 2018

JAMES WONG, ET AL. VS. AARON WONG, ET AL.

When challenging the validity of a decision by a county pension board, it is appropriate to distinguish between the deliberations and the vote, on the one hand, and the ultimate action taken by the board, on the other. Id. at 1064, citing San Ramon Valley Fire Protection Dist. v. Contra Costa County Employee’s Retirement Assn. (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 343. The former (deliberations and voting) are protected activity.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2018

BILLOW VS CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT

“This is in recognition of the fact that as the agency charged with administering PERL [Government Code §20000, et. seq.], PERS [CalPERS] has expertise and technical knowledge as well as ‘an intimate knowledge of the problems dealt with in the statute and the various administrative consequences arising from particular interpretation.’” (Id., citing Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. Of Equalization (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 338, 353.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2018

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF L A COUNTY VS ALBERT ROBLES

Oakland, (“International”) (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 687, 694 (quo warranto challenge to city police and fire pension and compensation measures that had taken effect). A quo warranto action under CCP section 803 provides the sole means for a private citizen to challenge the unlawful holding of public office. Nicolopulos v. City of Lawndale, (“Nicolopulos”) (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1225. Title to an office cannot be tried by mandamus, injunction, certiorari, or declaratory relief. Ibid.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2018

JESUS AGUILAR VS CIMAX HOME MORTGAGE

“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).” CCP § 708.510(e).

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BASTIEN VS SULLIVAN SOLAR POWER OF CALIFORNIA

Code section 218.5(a) provides, in part: "In any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney's fees and costs upon the initiation of the action.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ROCKEFELLER TECHONOLGY INVESTMENTS ASIA VII VS CHANGZHOU SIN

(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 15, 2018

SAUD ALMOTAB VS HERBICAN LLC

Pursuant to Labor Code § 218.5(a) "[i]n any action for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney's fees and costs upon the initiation of the action . . . . " Court records show that the original complaint prays for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code § 218.5.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

SAUD ALMOTAB VS HERBICAN LLC

Pursuant to Labor Code § 218.5(a) "[i]n any action for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions, the court shall award reasonable attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party if any party to the action requests attorney's fees and costs upon the initiation of the action . . . . " Court records show that the original complaint prays for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code § 218.5.

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2018

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

MARY PEREZ VS BOARD OF RETIREMENT OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Breach of Fiduciary Duty An employee who serves under a pension plan acquires a vested contractual right to a pension. Hittle v. Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System, (“Hittle”) (1985) 39 Cal.3d 374, 392. Pension plans create a trust relationship between pensioner-beneficiaries and the trustees of pension funds who administer retirement benefits. Id; Hannon Engineering, Inc. v. Reim, (1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 415, 425.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2018

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ROGER COWAN ET AL VS J E M PLUMBING ET AL

The August 31, 2015 Statement of Issues that JRS presented to the Board alleged that the Settlement Agreement had been calculating Mast’s pension payments incorrectly and not pursuant to Olson. Mast Decl. Ex. 2, p. 4.

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 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.