Source: https://trellis.law/ca/issue-type/government-pensions-270?sort=relevance
Timestamp: 2020-08-10 11:50:42
Document Index: 754348480

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 21363', '§20134', '§20123', '§ 905', '§ 905', '§ 17', '§ 905', '§ 31451', '§ 7522', '§ 7522', '§911', '§905']

Rulings on Government Pensions
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.
JOHNSTON VS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
By statute, Plaintiffs’ pension formulas are defined. Government Code §§ 21363 and 21363.8 define retirement benefits for state peace officers. Section 21363 provides for a 2.5% benefit at 55 years of age.
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.
RIC1510034
All of the causes of action asserted against County are based on pension benefits that are administrated by CalPERS. Plaintiffs provide no authority to counter Government Code §20134. Under Government Code §§20123 and 201235, the board of CalPERS “shall determine and modify benefits for service and disability” and “shall determine who are employees and is the sole judge of the conditions under which persons may be admitted to and continue to receive benefits under the system.”
But these Government Code provisions do not say that the member is retired upon his application. They say that he may be retired.
NOWICKI VS. C.C.C.E.R.A.
Plaintiff argues he was not required to submit a Government Tort Claim for the breach of contract claim because Gov. Code § 905(f) provides an exception for “Applications or claims for money or benefits under any public retirement or pension system.” Also Gov. Code § 905 (c) provides another exception for “Claims by public employees for fees, salaries, wages, mileage, or other expenses and allowances.” The pension benefits are deferred compensation or salary.
DEBORAH GANLEY VS. THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO [E-FILE]
Plaintiff's response that pension benefits such as the SSCB and refund benefit are "compensation" or "terms, condition, or privileges of employment" under Government Code section 12940(a) does not address the issue here, i.e., whether the City's actions caused a disproportionate adverse impact. Plaintiff has not raised a triable issue of fact on this element of its disparate impact theory. The City has demonstrated there is no triable issue of fact as to several essential elements of plaintiff's claim.
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.
Where an individual alleges that the defendants treated them unfairly in administering the pension system, the government claim filing requirement applies. (See Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation Dist. Employee Pension Plan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1497.) In response to Plaintiff’s belated government tort claim, County Counsel stated the portions of the claim prior to December 19, 2016 failed to comply with Government Code sections 901 and 911.2.
Government Code § 905(f) exception applies only where an individual seeks money due under the terms of an existing pension system. (Dalton, supra at p.1574.) Here, the claims against the Fire District, although tangentially related, are not claims for money under the retirement system.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION VS. SACRAMENTO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Code § 31451.) 2 In 2013, the Legislature enacted the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA). (§ 7522.) PEPRA members are generally public employees who began working after January 1, 2013. (§ 7522.04.) As described above, those employees hired prior to January 1, 2013 are considered 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all future statutory references are to the Government Code.
Judge RICHARD SUEYOSHI
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.
FERNANDEZ VS. CCC EMPLOYEES
The Court finds the applicable statue for awarding attorney’s fees in this case is Government Code section 31536. The statute allows for an award of fees in the Court’s discretion. Although Petitioner ultimately prevailed, it was not the Court’s intention to award attorney’s fees. Respondent’s denial of Petitioner’s service-connected disability retirement pension was not done on the basis of arbitrary or capricious conduct or without a reasonable basis.
Applicability of a Statutory Exception 4 Petitioners argue that, even if the Government Claims Act applies, their claims come 5 within the statutory exception for “[a]pplications or claims for money or benefits under any 6 public retirement or pension system” codified at Government Code section 905, subdivision (f). 7 Respondents dispute this point. 12 8 The statutory exceptions to the claim presentation requirement in Government Code 9 section 905 are strictly construed.
“The contractual basis of a pension right is the exchange of an employee's services for the pension right offered by the statute.” (Claypool v. Wilson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 646, 662.) “[U]pon acceptance of public employment plaintiff acquired a vested right to a pension based on the system then in effect.” (Miller v. State of California (1977) 18 Cal.3d 808, 817.) Pursuant to Gov.
CITY OF RIVERSIDE AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RIVERSIDE VS. MICHAEL COHEN IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
obligations" include: Payments required by the federal government, preexisting obligations to the state or obligations imposed by state law, other than passthrough payments... or legally enforceable payments required in connection with the agencies' employees, including, but not limited to, pension payments, pension obligation debt sen/ice, unemployment payments, or other obligations conferred through a collective bargaining agreement.
obligations” include: Payments required by the federal government, preexisting obligations to the state or obligations imposed by state law, other than passthrough payments… or 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.
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.
IRENE KOULIKOV VS. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
The demurrer is also sustained on the grounds the Plaintiff has failed to allege that she complied with the Government Claims Act by presenting a claim to SCERS within six months of the date of the alleged breach of contract. (Govt. Code §911.2(a).) Plaintiff contends she was not required to file a tort claim prior to filing this action under the exception contained in Govt Code §905(f) for "[a]pplications or claims for money or benefits under any public retirement or pension system."
NESSIM VS. BOARD OF RETIREMENT
The issues, and the law, differ in workers' compensation claims and disability pension claims, and the Workers Compensation Appeals Board and the pension board exist for different reasons and to achieve independent objectives. (Garrick v. Board of Pension Commissioners (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 243, 246.) More specifically, "a WCAB proceeding decides whether the employee suffered any job-related injury.