Top Plaintiffs' Verdicts by Impact: Mallano v. Chiang et al.

Declaratory judgment

Los Angeles County

Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle

Plaintiffs' attorneys: Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Raoul D. Kennedy, James P. Schaefer, Pramode Chiruvolu, William J. Casey

Defense attorney: Office of the Attorney General, Jonathan E. Rich

When judges sue, who's to judge them? In the case of California judicial officers seeking allegedly mandated salary increases, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Elihu M. Berle had little trouble concluding his fellow 3,400 bench officers were right in claiming the state controller failed to implement statutorily required pay hikes from 2008 to 2015.

The December outcome was a win for the lead plaintiff, retired 2nd District Court of Appeal Justice Robert M. Mallano and colleagues, represented by Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.

Mallano sought and got the court's declaration that California Government Code section 68203 is clear and self-executing when it holds that on every July 1, every judge and justice's salary shall be increased according to a formula that affects all state workers. Mallano v. Chiang et al., BC533770 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 21, 2014).

Berle rejected state officials' defense that the financial downturn forced them to withhold the pay hikes. Skadden Arps lawyers calculated that the back pay plus interest in question was between $25 million and $30 million. The decision will ensure that all future salary increases will be met.

Skadden Arps Of Counsel Raoul D. Kennedy, the judges' lead lawyer, could not be reached.

In court he argued, "The language in the statute is clear; it says salaries 'shall' be raised."

"The defense tries to argue that the Legislature has to make a separate appropriation, but the California Supreme Court has already held that a bill which sets the salaries of an elected state officer is an appropriation that takes place as soon as it is enacted," he added.

- John Roemer