UCLRG Status Report 1/1/13

 

Appeal Results:

 

The Appellate Court issued their decision on the 12/31/12. It contains a warning that the decision is not in published form so we are not allowed to rely on it, but we doubt it is likely to change significantly. The two key paragraphs for our purposes are as follows:

 

“Retirees later brought an action for mandamus against the Regents, claiming that the elimination of their University-sponsored group health insurance benefits constituted an unconstitutional impairment of either an express or implied contract the Regents had formed with Retirees.  Their petition also claimed the doctrines of promissory and equitable estoppel prohibited the termination of their University-sponsored group health insurance benefits.  They further sought a declaratory judgment.  After the Regents successfully demurred to Retirees’ original petition, they filed an amended pleading.  The Regents again filed a demurrer, which the trial court sustained without leave to amend.

            Retirees appeal from the resulting judgment.  They contend their amended petition adequately pleaded causes of action for impairment of express and implied contract, as well as causes of action for promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel, and declaratory relief.  We agree with Retirees with respect to all but their claim for impairment of express contract.  We conclude their other claims should not have been resolved on demurrer.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment in part and reverse it in part.”

 

We don’t believe that the part not reversed is significant since we have not found an express contract.  If we do, we are sure that an appeal to the Appellate court would result in them reversing themselves.

 

Some of you might like to know the method by which the Court reached its conclusion. The following paragraph summarizes the procedure:

 

“In ruling on the demurrer, the trial court had to accept as true all material facts properly pleaded in [Retirees’] petition, disregarding only conclusions of law and allegations contrary to judicially noticed facts. On appeal, we must do the same, and we therefore set out below the material allegations of the Retirees’ first amended petition for writ of mandate.”

 

The paragraph is followed by a summary of our pleadings.

 

We now have to look at what comes next. UC has the option of trying to reverse the Court, either by asking the Court to reverse itself or petitioning the State Supreme Court to hear an appeal. I doubt that they will do either, so we expect we will go back to the lower court and pick up where we left off. We will have more information after conferring with our lawyers

 

Financial Status:

 

We currently have about $15,000 in the bank, which will not be enough to finish but should be enough to continue while we solicit additional funds. Now is the time for those of you, who were waiting for the appeal outcome, to contribute more. As a reminder for those of you that can’t remember how, instructions are as follows:

 

Make checks out to:

UCLRG Legal Defense Fund

Send Donations to:

UCLRG Legal Defense Fund

C/O Barbara Sokoloski

1144 Xavier Way

Livermore, CA 94550

 

Donations will be deductible on your 2013 tax return.

 

Website:

 

We will put the Appellate Court ruling in the website Information Archive under legal filings. We will also put the fund thermometer back so you can monitor our financial status.