On March 08, 2021 a
Motion,Ex Parte
was filed
involving a dispute between
Bear Valley Community Services District, A California Community Services District,
Edmonds, David,
and
Bear Valley Community Services District,
Bear Valley Community Services District,A California Community Services District,
for 15-CV Other Employment - Civil Unlimited
in the District Court of Kern County.
Preview
Superior Court of California
County of Kern
Bakersfield Department 17
Hearing Date: 06/03/2021 Time: 8:30 AM - 12:00 PM
EDMONDS VS BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES
BCV-21-100487
Honorable: Thomas S. Clark Clerk: Linda K. Hall
Court Reporter: . None Bailiff: Deputy Sheriff
Interpreter: Language Of:
Court Call
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: DEMURRER
Hearing Start Time:8:35 AM
The above entitled cause came on regularly on this date and time with parties and/or counsel appearing as
reflected.
Counsel Erin M. Kelly and Scott R. Ames appeared via court call on behalf of Plaintiff.
Counsel Ryan A. Quadrel appeared via court call on behalf of Defendant.
Matter argued by counsel and submitted.
The Court makes the following findings and orders:
Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint - Overruled.
Answer to be filed and served by 07/15/2021.
Defendant Bear Valley Community Services District's Demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of contract of
Plaintiff's Complaint is overruled at this time, without prejudice to these issues being revisited in an evidentiary
context.
The Court grants judicial notice of the existence of the January 27, 2020 termination letter to Plaintiff David
Edmonds from attorney Vee B. Sotelo, but the Court declines to take judicial notice of the truth of any facts stated
therein.
Even if the Court accepts that Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant District for cause, looking at the First
Amended and Restated Employment Agreement ("Agreement"), Ex. D to the Complaint, section 3.4 of that
Agreement, addressing termination by the District for Cause, states in relevant part that "[i]n the event of a
termination for cause, the District is not required to provide the Severance Payment established under Section 3.3
MINUTES
Page 1 of 2
EDMONDS VS BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES BCV-21-100487
or any further salary to Edmonds although the Board may in its sole discretion elect to provide some form of
severance compensation." Section 3.4 does not expressly address long term disability insurance or any shortfall
payments for such insurance, which is the subject of dispute in this lawsuit. It thus appears that this section 3.4
alone, addressing termination with cause, does not necessarily end shortfall long term disability payments.
However, section 3.7 of the Agreement states that "[a]ll benefits to which Edmonds is entitled under this
Agreement will cease upon Edmonds' termination in accordance with this Section 3, unless expressly continued
either under this Agreement, under any specific written policy or benefit plan applicable to Edmonds, or unless
otherwise required by law."
At first blush, section 3.7 suggests that Plaintiff, after termination (whether with or without cause) is no longer
entitled to continue to receive shortfall long term disability payments from Defendant District.
Yet, the relevant language of section 2.3.1 states that "District also agrees that the long term disability insurance
provided will be at a coverage equal to 100% of Edmonds' then current base salary and the then current value of
Edmonds' other group insurance benefits provided under this Section 2.3.1 through age 65. In the event District's
insurance coverage is less than the total package required under this Section 2.3.1, any shortfall coverage will be
addressed by a direct payment from the District." This language can be interpreted in two ways: (1) section 3.7
ends entitlement to shortfall payment benefits by the District at termination, even if the long term disability itself
would be paid by the insurer through age 65 pursuant to section 2.3.1, or (2) this language expressly continues the
District's obligation to pay shortfall benefits equal to 100% of Edmonds' then current base salary and the then
current value of his other group insurance benefits under section 2.3.1 through age 65.
Since the language appears reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, the court will at present
accept the interpretation offered by Plaintiff for pleading purposes, i.e. shortfall payments through age 65, and will
overrule the Demurrer at this time, without prejudice.
Defendant may more fully address the applicability of the Government Code sections in an evidentiary context.
The Demurrer is overruled at this time without prejudice. Defendant shall file its Answer.
Clerk's minutes will be the order of the court.
Verbal notice of ruling given to counsel in open court.
Further notice waived.
FUTURE HEARINGS:
September 07, 2021 8:15 AM Case Management Conference
Clark, Thomas S.
Bakersfield Department 17
Sheriff, Deputy
MINUTES FINALIZED BY: LINDA HALL ON: 6/3/2021
MINUTES
Page 2 of 2
EDMONDS VS BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES BCV-21-100487
Document Filed Date
June 03, 2021
Case Filing Date
March 08, 2021
Category
15-CV Other Employment - Civil Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Superior Court of California County of Kern Bakersfield Department 17 Hearing Date: 06/03/2021 Time: 8:30 AM - 12:00 PM EDMONDS VS BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES BCV-21-100487 Honorable: Thomas S. Clark Clerk: Linda K. Hall Court Reporter: . None Bailiff: Deputy Sheriff Interpreter: Language Of: Court Call NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: DEMURRER Hearing Start Time:8:35 AM The above entitled cause came on regularly on this date and time with parties and/or counsel appearing as reflected. Counsel Erin M. Kelly and Scott R. Ames appeared via court call on behalf of Plaintiff. Counsel Ryan A. Quadrel appeared via court call on behalf of Defendant. Matter argued by counsel and submitted. The Court makes the following findings and orders: Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint - Overruled. Answer to be filed and served by 07/15/2021. Defendant Bear Valley Community Services District's Demurrer to the first cause of action for breach of contract of Plaintiff's Complaint is overruled at this time, without prejudice to these issues being revisited in an evidentiary context. The Court grants judicial notice of the existence of the January 27, 2020 termination letter to Plaintiff David Edmonds from attorney Vee B. Sotelo, but the Court declines to take judicial notice of the truth of any facts stated therein. Even if the Court accepts that Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant District for cause, looking at the First Amended and Restated Employment Agreement ("Agreement"), Ex. D to the Complaint, section 3.4 of that Agreement, addressing termination by the District for Cause, states in relevant part that "[i]n the event of a termination for cause, the District is not required to provide the Severance Payment established under Section 3.3 MINUTES Page 1 of 2 EDMONDS VS BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES BCV-21-100487 or any further salary to Edmonds although the Board may in its sole discretion elect to provide some form of severance compensation." Section 3.4 does not expressly address long term disability insurance or any shortfall payments for such insurance, which is the subject of dispute in this lawsuit. It thus appears that this section 3.4 alone, addressing termination with cause, does not necessarily end shortfall long term disability payments. However, section 3.7 of the Agreement states that "[a]ll benefits to which Edmonds is entitled under this Agreement will cease upon Edmonds' termination in accordance with this Section 3, unless expressly continued either under this Agreement, under any specific written policy or benefit plan applicable to Edmonds, or unless otherwise required by law." At first blush, section 3.7 suggests that Plaintiff, after termination (whether with or without cause) is no longer entitled to continue to receive shortfall long term disability payments from Defendant District. Yet, the relevant language of section 2.3.1 states that "District also agrees that the long term disability insurance provided will be at a coverage equal to 100% of Edmonds' then current base salary and the then current value of Edmonds' other group insurance benefits provided under this Section 2.3.1 through age 65. In the event District's insurance coverage is less than the total package required under this Section 2.3.1, any shortfall coverage will be addressed by a direct payment from the District." This language can be interpreted in two ways: (1) section 3.7 ends entitlement to shortfall payment benefits by the District at termination, even if the long term disability itself would be paid by the insurer through age 65 pursuant to section 2.3.1, or (2) this language expressly continues the District's obligation to pay shortfall benefits equal to 100% of Edmonds' then current base salary and the then current value of his other group insurance benefits under section 2.3.1 through age 65. Since the language appears reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, the court will at present accept the interpretation offered by Plaintiff for pleading purposes, i.e. shortfall payments through age 65, and will overrule the Demurrer at this time, without prejudice. Defendant may more fully address the applicability of the Government Code sections in an evidentiary context. The Demurrer is overruled at this time without prejudice. Defendant shall file its Answer. Clerk's minutes will be the order of the court. Verbal notice of ruling given to counsel in open court. Further notice waived. FUTURE HEARINGS: September 07, 2021 8:15 AM Case Management Conference Clark, Thomas S. Bakersfield Department 17 Sheriff, Deputy MINUTES FINALIZED BY: LINDA HALL ON: 6/3/2021 MINUTES Page 2 of 2 EDMONDS VS BEAR VALLEY COMMUNITY SERVICES BCV-21-100487