 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mitchell v. County fo Tuolumne6/25/2004
Plaintiffs and appellants Bill Mitchell, Jerry Benincasa, Sylvia Divita, Newel Egger, and Patrick Greenwell (collectively appellants) appeal from the judgment entered in favor of defendant and respondent County of Tuolumne (the County) after the trial court granted the County's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Appellants contend the trial court erred in granting the motion, challenging each of the five grounds the County raised as a basis for the motion. We conclude appellants' failure to file a written claim with the County pursuant to the California Tort Claims Act is fatal to their claims, and accordingly will affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORIES
The allegations of the complaint, which we are required to presume are true (Soliz v. Williams (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 577, 581), are as follows. Appellants, former County employees, are part of the County's Executive and Confidential Bargaining Unit (ECBU). Through the ECBU's negotiations with the Board of Supervisors, the County agreed to change appellants' retirement plan so they would receive the "Full Formula, Plus Social Security Benefit" from the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) (the retirement provision). On or about May 26, 1998, appellants and the County entered into a written agreement, entitled "Fiscal Year 1998-99 Executive/Confidential Unit Compensation Plan" (the written agreement), which was "clearly amended to reflect" the change in the retirement plan.
The County "promised, assured, and represented" to appellants "their post-employment retirement income would increase so that the social security allotment from the PERS would no longer be computed into their retirement package[,]" resulting in increased monthly payments from PERS after retirement. The County renewed these representations "on numerous occasions in May and December of 2000, and in February, March, April and August of 2001."
The ECBU's members relied on the retirement provision by rejecting reclassification at a higher pay scale and using it to compute their future retirement incomes, plan their retirement dates, and retire or leave County employment. After appellants left County employment, they discovered the County never fulfilled its obligations under the written agreement. When appellants attempted to enforce the written agreement's terms, the individual defendants, who constitute the Board of Supervisors, claimed there was no contract, without any belief in the contract's nonexistence as a defense.
Appellants and two other plaintiffs filed a complaint against the County and five individual defendants on April 4, 2002. The complaint alleges four causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) promissory estoppel; (3) "breach of contract combined with denial of existence of contract in bad faith and without probable cause"; and (4) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Appellants allege in the first cause of action the County breached the written agreement by failing to amend its contract with PERS to include the retirement provision, which breach was not discovered until October 9, 2001. In the second cause of action, appellants allege in promising to amend its contract with PERS, the County knew or should have known appellants would be reasonably induced to rely on the promise, appellants reasonably relied on the County's promises that their retirement income would increase and the County did not perform the promises. In both causes of action appellants seek as damages their lost monthly income caused by the County's breach or the failure to perform its promise.
Appellants allege in the third cause of action that "defendants" deni
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 California Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|