UCLRG
Status Report 1/23/13
A
brief revue of the organization:
Several retirees have asked why all of us are not included in the
law suit and why it isnÕt a class action suit so it is time to remind you who
we are and how we got here.
UCLRG is a group of mostly LLNL retirees who retired prior to Jan 1
2008 and for whom we have email addresses. We also have some other interested
people on the list. You would be a member of UCLRG if it had memberships.
Communications are almost exclusively by email because UCLRG donÕt have the
resources for additional means of communication.
UCLRG Legal Defense Fund is an Unincorporated Association formed
under California law. It consists of four officers, President, Vice President,
Secretary and Treasurer. It was originally created to handle the funds for the
UC lawsuit to assure proper financial accountability. Since it met the
requirements for a tax-exempt organization, it applied for and received tax
exempt status thereby making all donations tax deductible. It is the
organization that Solicits funds and enters into contracts with our lawyers.
The lawsuit was filed on the behalf of 4 affected retirees, the
plaintiffs, and it petitioned for a Writ of Mandate forcing UC to take back
responsibility for the medical benefits they shifted to LLNS. The approach was
taken with the intent of avoiding a long expensive class action suit and
getting a quick resolution of the issue. The theory was that if UC were
required to reinstate the plaintiffs, they would know they had the same
liability to the other retirees and would reinstate them as well. As you can
see, the lawsuit has been neither inexpensive nor quick. Worse yet, UC has
shown that they have no interest in being fair to their retirees.
Now that we have won our appeal, we will have to wait to see if UC
wants to contest the Appeals court ruling or not. The details of the options UC
has is given below UC has already missed the deadline for asking the Appeals
Court to reverse its self. The next deadline, on Feb. 11, Is for asking the
California Supreme Court to review the Appeals Court ruling. If UC asks, the
Supreme Court can decide whether or not to review it. Under normal
circumstances, it would be very unlikely for them to do so. However, because of
the Orange County ruling, the Supreme Court may see an issue in our case that
would give them a chance to clarify some point(s) of Orange County. That
increases the chance of their intervening.
If none of the above happens, the normal course of action would be
for us to go back to the Alameda Court and pick up where we left off. We
suspect there may be other options but we have not had a chance to talk to our
lawyers about them. When we do, we may not be able to tell you about them for
fear of breaching lawyer client privilege.
Our intent is and has always been to provide a solution for all
affected retirees, not just the plaintiffs.
The Alameda Superior
Court and the Court of Appeal
Below is our lawyersÕ summary of the situation.
As you all know, on August 10, 2011, Joe Requa, Wendell G.
Moen, Jay Davis, and Donna Ventura (the ÒRetireesÓ) filed suit in Alameda
County Superior Court, asking the court to compel the Regents to continue to
provide Livermore Retirees with University-sponsored health care. After providing University sponsored
group health insurance to all University retirees for more than 50 years, in
January 2008, the Regents terminated these benefits for retirees who worked at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and transferred responsibility to the
new private sector entity (Lawrence Livermore National Security).
The Retirees alleged they had a contract based on the
Regents repeatedly assuring them they would receive University-sponsored health
care during retirement. They also
argued that the Regents were ÒestoppedÓ (or legally barred) from denying their
claims. They alleged that an
express and/or implied contract arose based on UCÕs repeated assurances that
they would receive University-sponsored health care throughout retirement. They accepted UCÕs offer of work
under these terms by working at Livermore for many years.
The Regents moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that, even if the
allegations were true, the Retirees still could not prove there was a contract or that the
Regents were estopped. The Alameda
Superior Court agreed with the Regents and dismissed the lawsuit.
The Retirees appealed. While the appeal was
pending, the California Supreme Court decided the Orange County case, which was very helpful. Orange
County holds that public employees can establish a right to retiree
benefits based on an implied contract.
On December 31, 2012, the Court of Appeal reversed Alameda
Superior Court and reinstated the case. The Court of Appeal rejected
the Superior CourtÕs reasoning and criticized the RegentsÕ lawyers for some of
the arguments they made.
Next
Steps: Court of Appeal and Supreme Court
The Regents have a right to file a ÒPetition for
RehearingÓ in the Court of Appeal.
We believe they are likely to do so. This Petition is due by January 15,
2013. If the Regents do file a
Petition for Rehearing, the Court may ask the Retirees to respond. The Retirees do not have an automatic
right to respond and may only do so if the Court asks for a response. The Court of Appeal must make a decision
with respect to a Petition for Rehearing within 30 days, that is, by January
30, 2013. The vast majority of
Petitions for Rehearing are summarily denied.
Regardless of whether the Regents file a Petition for
Rehearing, they are entitled to file a Petition for Review in the California
Supreme Court. Unlike the Court of
Appeal, there is a right to file an Answer to a Petition for Review. Although an Answer is not required, the
Retirees will definitely want to file one (assuming the Regents ask the Supreme
Court to review the case). An
Answer is due 20 days after a Petition for Review is filed. If the Regents file on Monday, February
11, the Retirees will have until Monday, March 4, 2013, to file an Answer.
The Supreme Court has complete discretion to accept a case
for review or let the Court of Appeal opinion stand. The Supreme Court has 60 days for the
filing of a Petition for Review to decide to decide whether to hear the case,
although the Court may extend the time by another 30 days. The vast majority of Petitions for
Review in the California Supreme Court are denied.
Return
of Case to Alameda Superior Court
After proceedings in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme
Court are concluded, the case is returned to the Alameda Superior Court by way
of a ÒRemittitur,Ó which is normally issued within 30 days of a final decision
in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
After the case is returned to the Superior Court, the
Retirees can ask for ÒdiscoveryÓ of documents and information relating to the
decisions that are at issue in the lawsuit. There may be motions involving
Òdiscovery.Ó There may then be a
motion for summary judgment and/or a motion for a peremptory writ of mandate.
A tentative Timetable is given below. Many of the dates can change if the
Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court grants review, or if the Regents do not
file one or both Petitions, or file on different dates.
Additional
Funds Will Be Needed
The Regents are likely to file a Petition for Rehearing
and a Petition for Review. If the
Regents do file, there will likely be additional work in the Court of Appeal
and or the California Supreme Court.
We will need to work out with the attorneys what the costs are likely to
be for legal work following the Court of Appeal Opinion issued December 31,
2012, and what it is likely to cost for work in the Alameda Superior
Court.
|
|
|
Monday, December 31, 12 |
Court of Appeal Opinion filed |
0 days |
|
|
|
Tuesday, January 15, 13 |
Petition for Rehearing due |
15 days |
|
|
|
Wednesday, January 30, 13 |
Court of Appeal Opinion final |
30 days |
|
|
|
Saturday, February 9, 13 |
40 days after Court of Appeal Opinion filed |
40 days |
|
|
|
Monday, February 11, 13 |
Petition for Hearing in Cal. Supreme Court due |
42 days |
|
|
|
Sunday, March 3, 13 |
20 days after last day to file Petition for Review |
20 days |
|
|
|
Monday, March 4, 13 |
Answer to Petition for Hearing |
21 days |
|
|
|
Friday, April 12, 13 |
60 days after Petition for Hearing in Cal Supreme Court |
60 days |