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.

Health Care
Benefits

Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County

Published: Feb. 15, 2014 | Result Date: Jan. 10, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 4:09-cv-04432-CW Bench Decision –  Dismissal in Part

Court

USDC Northern


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Andrew Lah

Bill L. Lee

Sacha C. Steinberger

Jeffrey Lewis
(Jeff Lewis Law APC)

Darin D. Ranahan
(Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP)

Jeffrey G. Lewis
(Keller Rohrback LLP)

Teresa S. Renaker
(Renaker Hasselman Scott LLP)


Defendant

Caroline B. Burnett

Robert S. Blum

Raymond F. Lynch
(Hanson Bridgett LLP)

Jane Marie Feddes

Sarah D. Mott


Facts

Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees, or SCARE, is a nonprofit corporation created to promote the interests of retired employees of the county. In August 2008, the county passed a resolution to cap its healthcare benefit contributions to $500 per month for all retirees.

SCARE then filed suit against the county, arguing that this new cap would harm many retirees.

The district court initially dismissed the case in November 2010, and later the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal in 2013 and remanded back to the district court.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
SCARE argued that the cap was a breach of the county's obligations to pay for its retirees' healthcare benefits. It argued that the county had promised to do so into perpetuity, and that it was now violating that agreement.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The county moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that SCARE could not establish that it had promised to provide retirees with healthcare benefits.

Result

The court granted the county's motion to dismiss in part, but denied it in part. It allowed the plaintiffs' claims that were based on various promises allegedly implied in Memorandums of Understanding ratified by the Board of Supervisors, but disallowed its other claims.

Other Information

The only alternative claims that can proceed are based on MOU'S identified in the operative complaint and only for retirees hired after 1990 and retiring prior to the changes plaintiff's challenge.


#100384

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

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