Retired Employees Ass'n v. County of Orange
Decision Date | 19 June 2009 |
Docket Number | Case No. SACV 07-1301 AG(MLGx). |
Parties | RETIRED EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC., Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Central District of California |
G. Scott Emblidge, Michael P. Brown, Rachel J. Sater, Moscone Emblidge & Quadra, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.
Arthur Julian Bejarano, Arthur A. Hartinger, Edward L. Kreisberg, Neelam Naidu, Meyers Nave Riback Silver and Wilson, Oakland, CA, Benjamin P. De Mayo, Teri L. Maksoudian, Orange County Counsel, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
Even in difficult economic times, public employees are absolutely entitled to retirement benefits provided in contracts properly offered, approved, and accepted. But it is important that politicians who approve such benefits be held accountable whenever possible to the voters and taxpayers who ultimately pay for the benefits. This noble and necessary policy is strongly reflected in California law, which provides that the approval of a county's board of supervisors is necessary to bind the county to compensation agreements.
Plaintiff now seeks certain lifetime retirement benefits, but since the Orange County Board of Supervisors never properly approved the benefits sought, ultimate accountability to the taxpayers has been blurred. To honor the strong public policy of this State, the Court is required to find that the Defendant County of Orange is not obligated in the future to pay the benefits sought in this case, and GRANTS Defendant's summary judgment motion ("Motion"). Plaintiff's summary adjudication motion is DENIED as moot.
Plaintiff Retired Employees Association of Orange County, Inc. ("Plaintiff') sues on behalf of approximately 4,600 retirees over a change in their health care benefits. While the parties disagree over numerous tangential issues, the essential facts are not disputed.
Since approximately 1966, the County has provided health care benefits to its retired employees. In 1985, the County began "pooling" the retired employees with the active employees in the rate-setting process. Because retirees generally require more health services than active employees, who are generally younger and healthier, pooling the two groups allowed retirees to pay lower premiums and receive greater coverage than they otherwise would (the "pooling benefit"). As the cost of health care continued to rise over the years, the County found its employee health plans underfunded and needing adjustment. On September 12, 2006, the Board approved a resolution to "split the pool," which created different premium pools for active and retired employees and became effective on January 1, 2008. Retirees now face significantly higher health insurance premiums than they paid while receiving the pooling benefit. Plaintiff argues that by discontinuing the pooling benefit, the County has breached its obligations to retirees.
Plaintiff brings seven claims against Defendant, numbered as follows: (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) violation of due process rights under the United States Constitution; (4) violation of due process rights under the California Constitution; (5) impairment of contract under the United States Constitution; (6) impairment of contract under the California Constitution; and (7) violation of the California Pension Protection Act of 1992. Defendant now moves for summary judgment of all Plaintiffs claims, arguing that the County had no legal obligation to maintain the pooling arrangement for the retirees' lifetimes.
This matter is appropriately resolved at the summary judgment stage, and Plaintiff has filed a cross motion for summary adjudication, which is mooted by this Order. Both parties have developed their arguments in numerous briefs and supplements.
To support its Motion, Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of several documents: (1) the Orange County Board of Supervisors' Resolution No. 66-124; (2) a Second Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate, Orange County Employees Association, Inc. v. County of Orange, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 47-14-49; (3) a Notice of Ruling on Respondents' Demurrer, Orange County Employees Association, Inc. v. County of Orange, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 47-14-49; and (4) a Conformed Order Confirming Modified Second Plan of Adjustment, In re County of Orange, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. In opposing Defendant's Motion, Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of two documents: (1) Report of the California State Public Employee Post-Employment Benefits Commission, "Funding Pensions & Retiree Health Care for Public Employees"; and (2) County of Orange, Auditor-Controller Department, 5th Annual "OC Citizens' Report."
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), a judicially noticed fact must be one "not subject to reasonable dispute" in that it is either generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R.Evid. 201(b). Putting aside the issue of whether judicial notice is even necessary in relying on items like a board resolution, the Court GRANTS both parties' requests for judicial notice because all of the documents in question meet the requirements of Rule 201. See Karen Crane-McNab, LLC v. County of Merced, 2008 WL 4737152, *1 (E.D.Cal. Oct. 28, 2008) ( ).
Both parties have filed numerous evidentiary objections. The Court did not rely on most of the evidence under objection in making its rulings. Where the Court did rely on evidence under objection, the applicable objections were overruled.
The County argues that it has no contractual obligation to continue providing the pooling benefit to retirees, making numerous potentially viable arguments. Likewise, Plaintiff makes numerous arguments, with both parties' arguments evolving throughout the litigation and briefing. This case is ultimately resolved by the requirements of the California Constitution and California Government Code Sections 25300 and 3505.1, and the Court finds that the result in this case is not altered by any other arguments.
Spread across the annals of California law are numerous provisions reflecting its strong policy that approval of a county's board of supervisors is necessary to bind the county to compensation agreements. Cal. Const. Art. 11 § 1(b) ( ); Cal. Gov't Code § 25300 (); Codified Ordinances of Orange County Title 1, Div. 3, Art. 1 § 1-3-2 (); Cal. Gov't Code § 3505.1 ( ); County of Riverside v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.4th 278, 285, 132 Cal.Rptr.2d 713, 66 P.3d 718 (2003) (). In California, retirement benefits are deemed part of a compensation package and may only be conferred by board action. See Miller v. State of California, 18 Cal.3d 808, 814, 135 Cal.Rptr. 386, 557 P.2d 970 (1977). Here, the parties do not dispute that Board resolutions do not explicitly provide that the retirees are entitled to the pooling benefit for their lifetimes. (See Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Adjudication at 31 ().) Plaintiffs earlier seemed to embrace Resolution 84-1460 as providing the necessary Board approval, but this has proven to be an unfruitful embrace.
Plaintiff argues that the pooling benefit was an implied term of the memoranda of understanding between the parties, and is an element of deferred compensation the retirees are entitled to for their lifetimes. But cases finding such contractual obligations regarding public pensions base their findings on explicit language in statutes or legislative enactments. See, e.g., Thorning v. Hollister School Dist., 11 Cal. App.4th 1598, 1609, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 91 (1992) ( ); California Teachers Ass'n v. Cory, 155 Cal.App.3d 494, 506, 202 Cal.Rptr. 611 (1984) ( ); Valdes v. Cory, 139 Cal.App.3d 773, 787, 189 Cal.Rptr. 212 (1983) (); Teachers Retirement Board v. Genest, 154 Cal.App.4th 1012, 1030, 65 Cal.Rptr.3d 326 (2007) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Retired Emps. Ass'n of Orange Cnty., Inc. v. Cnty. of Orange
...rates only for that plan year. The district court granted summary judgment for County on all claims. ( Retired Employees Ass'n v. County of Orange (C.D.Cal.2009) 632 F.Supp.2d 983.) As to the claims of breach of contract and impairment of contract, the court held that County cannot, as a ma......
-
McVey v. McVey
...motion for relief from the automatic stay, and the bankruptcy court's order of dismissal); Retired Employees Ass'n of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange, 632 F.Supp.2d 983, 985 (C.D.Cal.2009) (taking judicial notice of a bankruptcy court order under Rule 201 ); Accordingly, the court t......
-
Sacramento Cnty. Retired Emps. Ass'n v. Cnty. of Sacramento
...rates for health care benefits, which ultimately led to higher premiums for the retirees. Retired Emp. Ass'n of Orange Cnty., Inc. v. County of Orange, 632 F.Supp.2d 983 (C.D.Cal.2009) (REAOC I ). The district court rejected the retirees' argument that an implicit promise to continue the po......
-
Ferris v. City of San Jose
...1282 (9th Cir. 1986)); United States v. Capua, 656 F.2d 1033, 1038 n.3 (5th Cir. 1981); Retired Employees Ass'n of Orange Cnty., Inc. v. Cnty. of Orange, 632 F. Supp. 2d 983, 984-85 (C.D. Cal. 2009); Santos v. Cnty. of L.A. Dep't of Children and Family Servs., 299 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1075 n.7......