This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.


Modification: Carroll v. City and County of San Francisco

Ruling by

Tracie L. Brown

Lower Court

San Francisco County Superior Court

Lower Court Judge

Mary E. Wiss
Plaintiff alleged that each disability retirement check provides her reduced benefits and that age was substantial motivating factor for payment of reduced benefits; thus, plaintiff's claim was timely under 'continuous accrual doctrine.'



Court

California Courts of Appeal 1DCA/4

Cite as

2019 DJDAR 11118

Published

Dec. 2, 2019

Filing Date

Nov. 27, 2019

Opinion Type

Modification

Disposition Type

Reversed


JOYCE CARROLL,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 

No. A155208

 

(San Francisco City & County

Super. Ct. No. CGC-17-562580)

California Courts of Appeal

First Appellate District

Division Four

Filed November 27, 2019

 

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING;

NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

 

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 31, 2019, be modified as follows:

On page 11, the last sentence of the second paragraph, beginning, "Questions of retroactivity and remedies, . . . " is changed to:

 

"Such questions, however, are not before this court, and Long's reference to the continuing violation doctrine is not controlling here."

 

On page 17, the last sentence of footnote 13, beginning, "Plaintiff thus cannot recover . . . . " is changed to:

 

"Plaintiff thus cannot bring timely claims for relief under Richards or Alch for violations going back to her retirement in 2000."

 

The request for clarification is granted and addressed by the above modification.

There is no change in judgment.

The petition for rehearing is denied.

#274390

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390