Preview
1 MATTHEW G. JACOBS, GENERAL COUNSEL E-FILED
JOHN SHIPLEY, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY,SBN 229739 1/15/2020 10:58 AM
2 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Superior Court of California
Lincoln Plaza North, 400"Q" Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 County of Fresno
3
P. O. Box 942707, Sacramento, CA 94229-2707 By: S. Lopez, Deputy
4 Telephone: (916)795-3675
Facsimile: (916)795-3659
5
Attorneys for Respondent
6 Board of Administration of the California
Public Employees' Retirement System
7
EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES (Gov. Code,§ 6103)
8
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
9
FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO
10
CAPRINA D. ZARATE ) Case No.: 19CECG04403
11
Pofitinnor
petitioner, ( BOARD OF ADMINSTRATION
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
12
RETIREMENT SYSTEM'S ANSWER
13 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF
MANDATE[CCP § 1094.5]
14 BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION ) cvc^ilD-^ coniim cii im/^ ccco
15
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'|^ r h
RETIREMENT SYSTEM {
16
Respondent.
17
18
19 Respondent Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement
20 System ("CalPERS") answers Petitioner Caprina D. Zarate's ("Petitioner") Verified
21 Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section
22 1094.5 ("Petition") by admitting, denying and alleging as follows:
23 1. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 1, CalPERS admits that
24 Petitioner was, and is, a member of CalPERS. CalPERS lacks sufficient information to
25 admit or deny whether Petitioner was a resident of the County of Fresno at the time the
26 January 11, 2018, decision was issued by CalPERS that Petitioner was no longer
27 substantially incapacitated, and on that basis denies the allegation.
28
1
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 2. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 2, CalPERS admits that it
2 is charged with administering the provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law.
3 3. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 3, CalPERS admits the
4 allegations contained therein.
5 4. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 4, CalPERS admits the
6 allegations contained therein.
7 5. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 5, CalPERS denies
8 generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein.
9 6. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 6, CalPERS admits that
10 Petitioner has exhausted her available administrative remedies. CalPERS lacks sufficient
11 information and belief to either admit or deny the remaining allegations and on that basis
12 denies each and every allegation contained therein.
13 7. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 7, to the extent the
14 allegations in this paragraph purport to recite, quote or characterize California Civil Code
15 §3287(a), the statute speaks for itself. To the extent that a response to the remainder of
16 this paragraph is deemed necessary, CalPERS denies each and every allegation
17 contained therein.
18 8. CalPERS denies all allegations not specifically addressed above, denies it
19 is liable as alleged in the Petition or at all, denies Petitioner is entitled to a writ of
20 mandate or any other remedy.
21 9. CalPERS denies all allegations contained in Petitioner's prayer for relief.
22 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
23 CalPERS alleges the following affirmative defenses with respect to the Petition. By
24 alleging the matters set out below, CalPERS does not admit, assume or allege that it
25 bears the burden of proof on any particular affirmative defense asserted.
26 ///
27 III
28 III
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
2 CalPERS asserts that the allegations in the Petition and each of them fail to allege
3 facts sufficient to state a claim or cause of action against CalPERS upon which relief may
4 be granted.
5 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6 CalPERS has performed its statutory duties, has properly exercised its discretion,
7 has not acted arbitrarily, capriciously or committed any abuse of discretion in this matter,
8 has acted throughout in accordance with law and within its statutory jurisdiction, and
9 CalPERS' Decision denying Petitioner's appeal was lawful, proper and fully in
10 accordance with all applicable provisions of law.
11 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
12 CalPERS' Decision that is the subject of the Petition is supported by its findings,
13 which are supported by the evidence adduced in this matter and the law, and the
14 CalPERS Decision is neither arbitrary, capricious nor an abuse of discretion.
15 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
16 Petitioner has failed to present a timely government claim with respect to any
17 request for damages or had such claim rejected, as required under Government
18 Code § 945.4.
19 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
20 Because the Petition is couched in conclusory terms, in answering, CalPERS
21 cannot fully anticipate all defenses that may be applicable to the within action:
22 Accordingly, the right to assert additional defenses, if and to the extent that such
23 defenses are applicable, is hereby reserved.
24 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
25 CalPERS asserts that this Court does not have jurisdiction to enter any order other
26 than to deny Petitioner's Petition or set aside the CalPERS Decision.(Code Civ. Proc.
27 § 1094.5(f).)
28
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
1 WHEREFORE, CalPERS prays for judgment as follows:
2 1. The Petition be denied;
3 2. That Petitioner take nothing by way of this Petition;
4 3. That Petitioner's claim for litigation costs be denied;
5 4. That Petitioner's claim for pre-judgment interest on all accrued industrial
6 disability retirement benefits be denied;
7 4. That CalPERS be awarded costs of suit incurred herein; and,
8 5. That CalPERS be granted such other and further relief as this Court may
9 deem just and proper.
10 VERIFICATION NOT REQUIRED
11 Respondent Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement
12 System is vested with management and control of the California Public Employees'
13 Retirement System, a state governmental unit within the State and Consumer Services
14 Agency. As a state public entity Respondent is not required to verify this Answer.
15 (Government Code §§ 20002 and 20120; Code of Civil Procedure § 446; Trask v.
16 Superior Court(1994) 22 Cal.App. 4th 346, 350, fn.3.)
17
18 Respectfully Submitted,
19
20 Dated: January 15, 2020
JOFfN SHIPLEY, Senior Staff Attorney
21 Attorney for Respondent Board of Administration,
California Public Employees' Retirement System
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
Preview
1 MATTHEW G. JACOBS, GENERAL COUNSEL E-FILED JOHN SHIPLEY, SENIOR STAFF ATTORNEY,SBN 229739 1/15/2020 10:58 AM 2 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM Superior Court of California Lincoln Plaza North, 400"Q" Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 County of Fresno 3 P. O. Box 942707, Sacramento, CA 94229-2707 By: S. Lopez, Deputy 4 Telephone: (916)795-3675 Facsimile: (916)795-3659 5 Attorneys for Respondent 6 Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System 7 EXEMPT FROM FILING FEES (Gov. Code,§ 6103) 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 CAPRINA D. ZARATE ) Case No.: 19CECG04403 11 Pofitinnor petitioner, ( BOARD OF ADMINSTRATION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' 12 RETIREMENT SYSTEM'S ANSWER 13 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE[CCP § 1094.5] 14 BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION ) cvc^ilD-^ coniim cii im/^ ccco 15 CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'|^ r h RETIREMENT SYSTEM { 16 Respondent. 17 18 19 Respondent Board of Administration California Public Employees' Retirement 20 System ("CalPERS") answers Petitioner Caprina D. Zarate's ("Petitioner") Verified 21 Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 22 1094.5 ("Petition") by admitting, denying and alleging as follows: 23 1. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 1, CalPERS admits that 24 Petitioner was, and is, a member of CalPERS. CalPERS lacks sufficient information to 25 admit or deny whether Petitioner was a resident of the County of Fresno at the time the 26 January 11, 2018, decision was issued by CalPERS that Petitioner was no longer 27 substantially incapacitated, and on that basis denies the allegation. 28 1 ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 2. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 2, CalPERS admits that it 2 is charged with administering the provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law. 3 3. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 3, CalPERS admits the 4 allegations contained therein. 5 4. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 4, CalPERS admits the 6 allegations contained therein. 7 5. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 5, CalPERS denies 8 generally and specifically each and every allegation contained therein. 9 6. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 6, CalPERS admits that 10 Petitioner has exhausted her available administrative remedies. CalPERS lacks sufficient 11 information and belief to either admit or deny the remaining allegations and on that basis 12 denies each and every allegation contained therein. 13 7. Answering the allegations contained in Paragraph 7, to the extent the 14 allegations in this paragraph purport to recite, quote or characterize California Civil Code 15 §3287(a), the statute speaks for itself. To the extent that a response to the remainder of 16 this paragraph is deemed necessary, CalPERS denies each and every allegation 17 contained therein. 18 8. CalPERS denies all allegations not specifically addressed above, denies it 19 is liable as alleged in the Petition or at all, denies Petitioner is entitled to a writ of 20 mandate or any other remedy. 21 9. CalPERS denies all allegations contained in Petitioner's prayer for relief. 22 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 23 CalPERS alleges the following affirmative defenses with respect to the Petition. By 24 alleging the matters set out below, CalPERS does not admit, assume or allege that it 25 bears the burden of proof on any particular affirmative defense asserted. 26 /// 27 III 28 III ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 2 CalPERS asserts that the allegations in the Petition and each of them fail to allege 3 facts sufficient to state a claim or cause of action against CalPERS upon which relief may 4 be granted. 5 SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6 CalPERS has performed its statutory duties, has properly exercised its discretion, 7 has not acted arbitrarily, capriciously or committed any abuse of discretion in this matter, 8 has acted throughout in accordance with law and within its statutory jurisdiction, and 9 CalPERS' Decision denying Petitioner's appeal was lawful, proper and fully in 10 accordance with all applicable provisions of law. 11 THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 12 CalPERS' Decision that is the subject of the Petition is supported by its findings, 13 which are supported by the evidence adduced in this matter and the law, and the 14 CalPERS Decision is neither arbitrary, capricious nor an abuse of discretion. 15 FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16 Petitioner has failed to present a timely government claim with respect to any 17 request for damages or had such claim rejected, as required under Government 18 Code § 945.4. 19 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 20 Because the Petition is couched in conclusory terms, in answering, CalPERS 21 cannot fully anticipate all defenses that may be applicable to the within action: 22 Accordingly, the right to assert additional defenses, if and to the extent that such 23 defenses are applicable, is hereby reserved. 24 SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 CalPERS asserts that this Court does not have jurisdiction to enter any order other 26 than to deny Petitioner's Petition or set aside the CalPERS Decision.(Code Civ. Proc. 27 § 1094.5(f).) 28 ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 1 WHEREFORE, CalPERS prays for judgment as follows: 2 1. The Petition be denied; 3 2. That Petitioner take nothing by way of this Petition; 4 3. That Petitioner's claim for litigation costs be denied; 5 4. That Petitioner's claim for pre-judgment interest on all accrued industrial 6 disability retirement benefits be denied; 7 4. That CalPERS be awarded costs of suit incurred herein; and, 8 5. That CalPERS be granted such other and further relief as this Court may 9 deem just and proper. 10 VERIFICATION NOT REQUIRED 11 Respondent Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement 12 System is vested with management and control of the California Public Employees' 13 Retirement System, a state governmental unit within the State and Consumer Services 14 Agency. As a state public entity Respondent is not required to verify this Answer. 15 (Government Code §§ 20002 and 20120; Code of Civil Procedure § 446; Trask v. 16 Superior Court(1994) 22 Cal.App. 4th 346, 350, fn.3.) 17 18 Respectfully Submitted, 19 20 Dated: January 15, 2020 JOFfN SHIPLEY, Senior Staff Attorney 21 Attorney for Respondent Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ANSWER TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE