1 ROnnose ce es foie) 10| W 12 2B 14 15 16 17] 18 19 20 21 22 23) 24 25 26 27 28 PREPARED BY THE COURT ENDORSED Sesh arose OCT 27 2015 CLERK OF THE COURT By SEAN KANE, ——SEANANE Depuiy Cenk CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, UNLIMITED JURISDICTION COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT MATTHEW C. McGLYNN, LOUIE BROOKS ANDERHOLT, TARA M. FLANAGAN, JENNIFER A. GIULIANI, GARY G. KREEP, and BENJAMIN WIRTSCHAFTER, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, Petitioners/Plaintiffs, vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL, THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM, JOHN CHIANG, in his official capacity as the Controller of the State of California, and DOES 1 through 10, Respondents/Defendants. ‘No. CPF-14-514052 ORDER SUSTAINING RESPONDENTS! DEMURRER TO VERIFIED WRIT PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF On September 22, 2015, Respondents State of California and the Board of Administration of CalPers' Demurrer to Verified Writ Petition and Complaint for Declaratory Relief came on for hearing before the Honorable Emest H. Goldsmith. Teague P. Paterson, Esq. of Beeson, Tayer & Bodine, APC appeared for the Petitioners. Deputy Attomey ‘ORDER SUSTAINING RESPONDENTS’ DEMURRER TO VERIFIED WRIT PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF.ws win So we ao General Peter H. Chang of the Office of the Attomey General of the State of California appeared for Respondents State of Califomia and the Board of Administration of CalPers. Oral argument was made by parties at hearing, and matter was submitted by parties. The Court took the matter under submission. After having previously taken the matter under submission, and having considering Respondents’ moving papers, Petitioners' opposition papers, Respondents’ reply papers, and parties' oral arguments at hearing, the Court now rules as follows: Respondents’ Demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. The Petitioner Judges in this case began their terms on January 7, 2013. The Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013 (“PEPRA”) became effective January 1, 2013. Petitioner Judges? statutory entitlement to pension benefits therefore began upon the beginning of their employment, not on the date of their election in 2012. (See Olson v. Cory (1980) 27 Cal.3d 532, 540; Legislature v. Eu (1991) 54 Cal.3d 492, 534.) Accordingly, PEPRA does not ‘unconstitutionally impair their pension rights. Similarly, PEPRA does not violate the constitutional prohibition on lowering judicial salary during a judge’s term of office, because Petitioners began their terms after PEPRA’s effective date. The Court also rejects Petitioners’ argument that PEPRA is an unconstitutional delegation of the legislature's authority to set judicial pay. ‘The Court rejects Petitioners’ equal protection challenge on the basis that the facts pled in the Verified Petition amount to only a rational basis challenge to applying PEPRA to judges elected in 2012 but-not to judges appointed in 2012; there is a rational basis, “because judges appointed in 2012 actually assumed office and began employment prior to PEPRA’s effective date. Finally, the Court rejects Petitioners’ estoppel argument; estoppel may not be invoked against a goverment agency that did not have authority to do what it was previously doing. (See Medina v. Bd. of Retirement (2003) 112 Cal.App 4th 846, 870.) Because the Court finds PEPRA applies to Petitioners, the State was without authority when it deducted contributions at the pre-PEPRA rate, and cannot be estopped from correcting its previous error. 2 ORDER SUSTAINING RESPONDENTS’ DEMURRER TO VERIFIED WRIT PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEFSion eer ercst ats) 10 ul 12| B 14] 15) 16) 17] 18 19 20 24 3B 24 25 26 21 28 ‘The Request for Judicial notice is granted, although the documents in question have limited impact on the disposition of the case, IT IS SO ORDERED. eae ov Gms it LE pao ‘Honorable Emest )dsmi Judge of the Superior Court 3 ORDER SUSTAINING RESPONDENTS’ DEMURRER TO VERIFIED WRIT PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEFSuperior Court of California County of San Francisco MATTHEW C. McGLYNN, et al. Case Number: CPF-14-514052 Petitioners/Plaintifts, CERTIFICATE OF MAILING vs. (CCP 1013a (4)) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al. Respondents/Defendants. 1, Michael Yuen, Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San Francisco, certify that Tam not a party to the within action, On October 27, 2015, I served the attached ORDER SUSTAINING RESPONDENTS’ DEMURRER TO VERIFIED WRIT PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF by placing a copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: ‘Teague P. Paterson, Esq. Peter H. Chang, Deputy Attorney Genéral Beeson, Tayer & Bodine, APC Office of the Attomey General 483 Ninth Street, 2" Floor 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 Oakland, CA 94607-4051 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Timothy G. Yeung, Esq. Rene Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP 428 J Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 and, I then placed the sealed envelopes in the outgoing mail at 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 oi the date indicated above for collection, attachment of required prepaid postage, and inidiling on that date following standard court practices. Dated: October 27, 2015 MICHAEL YUEN, Clerk ee Kane, Deputy Clerk