Public Pensions – Entitlement, Loss & Forfeiture

Useful Rulings on Government Pensions

Recent Rulings on Government Pensions

GEORGE AND KALLIOPI METSOVAS AS TRUSTEES FOR THE METSOVAS FAMILY TRUST VS CITY OF ORANGE

Bankers Pension Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 550, 558 [parties’ intent to benefit third party must appear in agreement].) The complaint sufficiently alleges a breach of contract.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

JUI-CHIEN LIN VS ROBERT CHIU

The court’s order may assign to the judgment creditor the judgment debtor’s right to receive the following types of payments: (1) Wages due from the federal government that are not subject to withholding under an earnings withholding order. (2) Rents. (3) Commissions. (4) Royalties. (5) Payments due from a patent or copyright. (6) The loan value of an insurance policy. (CCP § 708.510(a).)

  • Hearing

    Aug 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ELDER OSVALDO GUTIERREZ VS LOCAL PIE, LLC, ET AL.

“Section 218.5, with certain exceptions not relevant here, governs the award of attorney fees in “any action brought for the nonpayment of wages, fringe benefits, or health and welfare or pension fund contributions.” (§ 218.5, subd. (a).) In such actions, “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.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 11, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JON COUPAL VS. ALEX PADILLA, AS THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

As examples, Petitioners note a local government could spend its extra funds on “a new city hall, a soccer stadium, or to fund its pension debt.” The Court is not convinced that a new city hall or a soccer stadium are categorically exempt from the term “services.” As for pension debt, an argument could be made that providing pensions (and thus funding pension debt) provides services to residents in the form of capable and competent government employees.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

JON COUPAL VS. ALEX PADILLA, AS THE SECRETARY OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioners note a local govemment could spend its extra funds on "a new city hall, a soccer stadium, or to fund its pension debt." The Court is not convinced that a new city hall or a soccer stadium are categorically exempt from the term "services." As for pension debt, an argument could be made that providing pensions (and thus fiinding pension debt) provides services to residents in the form of capable and competent govemment employees.

  • Hearing

    Aug 06, 2020

ANTHONY SAM VS RENEE KWAN ET AL

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that “it must be noted that Hertzberg LLC is not a ‘top official or government executive’ under the relevant case law.” (Opp., p. 3:21-22.) Instead, Plaintiff argues that Defendant Hertzberg Holdings LLC “is an entity that exists separate and apart from the Senator and thus should not be permitted to claim the privilege that applies to sitting members of the legislature.” (Id. at p. 3:22-23.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CAROL SWITZER VS. SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

App. 3d 1327, 1332 [although pension law 12 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code. substantially unable to perform her usual job duties. (Harmon v. Board of Retirement of San Mateo County (1976) 62 Cal.App.3d 689, 691, 65; Mansperger v. Public Employees’ Retirement System (1970) 6 Cal. App. 3d 873, 876.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 22, 2020

LINDA WILKINSON VS DON KENDRICK, ET AL.

Sec. 54957(b): employee discipline Sec. 54957.6: employee salaries Sec. 54957.8: ongoing criminal investigations by multijurisdictional law enforcement agencies Sec. 54957.10: employee request for early withdrawal of pension funds Government Code section 54962 provides: “Except as expressly authorized by this chapter [and other enumerated provisions], no closed session may be held by any legislative body of any local agency.”

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

ANDREW MCGINNIS, ET AL. VS SAN MARINO GARDENS WELLNESS CENTER, LP

The automobile dealer has his franchise, the doctor and lawyer their professional licenses, the worker his union membership, contract, and pension rights, the executive his contract and stock options; all are devices to aid security and independence.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JOHN A. MCGINNIS, DECEASED BY AND THROUGH HIS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST, ANDREW MCGINNIS, ET AL. VS USC VERDUGO HILLS HOSPITAL

The automobile dealer has his franchise, the doctor and lawyer their professional licenses, the worker his union membership, contract, and pension rights, the executive his contract and stock options; all are devices to aid security and independence.

  • Hearing

    Jul 17, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

    Jul 16, 2020

MARIELOU MENDOZA VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC ET AL

The Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleges: Violations of California Health & Safety Code § 1278.5; Violation of California Government Code § 12940(j)- Race Discrimination; Violation of California Government Code § 12940(j)- Age Discrimination; Violation of California Government Code § 12940(K)- Hostile Work Environment Retaliation in Violation of Government Code § 12940; Wrongful Constructive Termination in Violation of Public Policy; Defamation.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

KIMIKO LEITZ VS ARTHUR NATVIG DDS 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

    Jul 02, 2020

JOSE FERNANDEZ VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

The issue in this case is whether CalPERS properly determined his final compensation. 2 The Court upholds most of CalPERS’s determination, but 1 PERL is found at Government Code sections 20000 et seq., and further undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code. 2 The difference between the two sides is significant, although not entirely clear.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JOSE FERNANDEZ VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM

.^ The Court upholds most of CalPERS's determination, but ' PERL is found at Government Code sections 20000 et seq., and ftirther undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code. ^ The difference between the two sides is significant, although not entirely clear. If the Court understands it correctly, Fernandez contends his final compensation was $326,796 per year, while CalPERS determined it was approximately $206,000.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

SOBERTEC LLC VS. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC

ERISA is a comprehensive federal law designed to promote the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee pension and benefit plans. Port Med. Wellness, Inc. v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 153, 171. As a part of this integrated regulatory system, Congress enacted various safeguards to preclude abuse and to secure the rights and expectations that ERISA brought into being. Ibid.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

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

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

THOMPSON VS. COFIROUTE USA, LLC

The first cause of action for declaratory relief is not subject to the requirements of the Government Claims Act. (See Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation Dist. Employee Pension Plan (2006) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493.) If a government entity rejects a claim for money or damages, the claimant has six months from the date of rejection to file suit. (Gov. Code, § 945.6(a)(1).) As noted above, Thompson’s claims were denied on March 20, 2019 (RCTC) and April 15, 2019 (OCTA).

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

SKOGEBO VS. COFIROUTE USA, LLC

Employee Pension Plan (2006) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1493.) Initially, OCTA argues that Skogebo’s claim is barred because, as set forth above, he only filed a pre-suit claim with RCTC, not OCTA. Skogebo argues that as an absent member of the class described in Thakur’s claim to OCTA, he is entitled to rely on Thakur’s claim to demonstrate compliance with the Government Claims Act.

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

MARCELLO CODOG VS. SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

It has been held . . . that an employer takes his employee as he finds him, and therefore any acceleration or aggravation [i.e., by the employment] of a preexisting disability becomes a service-connected injury of that employment [citations], and that an applicant for a government retirement pension will be awarded service-connected benefits where he or she can show a material and traceable connection between disability

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

MARCELLO CODOG VS. SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM

It has been held ... that an employer takes his employee as he finds him, and therefore any acceleration or aggravation [i.e., by the employment] of a preexisting disability becomes a service-connected injury of that employment [citations], and that an applicant for a government retirement pension will be awarded service-connected benefits where he or she can show a material and traceable connection between disability and

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

Spannaus, the Court held that the Minnesota pension law severely impaired established contractual relations between employers and employees. The State had not acted to meet an important general social problem. The pension statute had a very narrow focus: it was aimed at specific employers. Indeed, it even may have been directed at one particular employer planning to terminate its pension plan when its collective-bargaining agreement expired.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

LUMINA V. UMINA

Spannaus, the Court held that the Minnesota pension law severely impaired established contractual relations between employers and employees. The State had not acted to meet an important general social problem. The pension statute had a very narrow focus: it was aimed at specific employers. Indeed, it even may have been directed at one particular employer planning to terminate its pension plan when its collective-bargaining agreement expired.

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

BBB BONDING CORPORATION VS ASHLEY PILLING-MILLER ET AL

Footnote 1: This Department intends to comply with the time requirements of the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act (Government Code, §§ 68600–68620). The California Rules of Court state that the goal of each trial court should be to manage limited and unlimited civil cases from filing so that 100 percent are disposed of within 24 months. (Ca. St. Civil Rules of Court, Rule 3.714(b)(1)(C) and (b)(2)(C).

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

IAN MCCRAY V. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., ET AL.

San Francisco Public Library Com. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 109, 114 [ordinance]; Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1016, 1037 [voter initiative].) Where there is ambiguity in the language of a voter initiative, “ ‘[b]allot summaries and arguments may be considered when determining the voters’ intent and understanding of a ballot measure.’ ” (Professional Engineers in California Government v. Kempton, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 1037, quoting Legislature v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

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.