Opinion ID: 3053286
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Current Appeal

Text: On remand, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the correct interpretation of the consent decree. On April 18, 2007, the district court issued an order denying the PERS members’ summary judgment motion and granting the Board’s summary judgment motion. Henderson v. Oregon, 2007 WL 1187978 (D. Or. Apr. 18, 2007). The district court held that the text of the consent degree was ambiguous, id. at , but that extrinsic evidence of the parties’ intent demonstrated that the consent decree “does not require [the Board] to use refund annuity tables which grant benefits no less than the benefits in effect for males on July 1, 1978,” id. at . The district court also struck certain paragraphs from affidavits filed in support of the PERS members’ summary judgment motion. On May 15, 2007, the PERS members filed their timely notice of appeal.