Opinion ID: 3066141
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: challenges to the county’s termination of the

Text: POOLED PREMIUM In response to the County’s decision to terminate the pooled premium, REAOC filed suit in the Central District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Among other claims,2 REAOC argued that the County’s longstanding practice of pooling and the County’s representations to employees regarding that practice created an implied contract right to continued pooled premiums for employees who retired prior to January 1, 2008. Retired Emps. Ass’n of Orange Cnty. v. Cnty. of Orange (“REAOC I”), 632 F. Supp. 2d 983, 986 (C.D. Cal. 2009). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted the County’s motion for summary judgment on all claims. Id. at 988. The district court determined that “California courts have refused to find public entities contractually obligated to provide specified retirement benefits like those [REAOC] seeks in the absence of explicit legislative or statutory authority.” Id. at 2 REAOC’s other claims included denial of due process in violation of the United States and California Constitutions, breach of contract, and age discrimination. REAOC V. COUNTY OF ORANGE 7 987. The court found that the County “has no contractual obligation to continue providing the pooling benefit” to retirees. Id. at 987. REAOC appealed the judgment with respect to its contract clause claims. In response, we certified the following question to the California Supreme Court: “Whether, as a matter of California law, a California county and its employees can form an implied contract that confers vested rights to health benefits on retired county employees.” Retired Emps. Ass’n of Orange Cnty. v. Cnty. of Orange (“REAOC II”), 610 F.3d 1099, 1101 (9th Cir. 2010). The California Supreme Court answered affirmatively, stating that vested health benefits “can be implied under certain circumstances from a county ordinance or resolution.” Retired Emps. Ass’n of Orange Cnty. v. Cnty. of Orange (“REAOC III”), 266 P.3d 287, 301 (Cal. 2011).3 The court declined, however, to determine whether such circumstances had been met with respect to REAOC and the County. Id. We remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings in light of REAOC III. Retired Emps. Ass’n of Orange Cnty. v. Cnty. of Orange (“REAOC IV”), 663 F.3d