Spaccia v. California Public Employees' Retirement System CA2/3 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Filed 7/21/23 Spaccia v. California Public Employees’ Retirement System CA2/3
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on
    opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(a). This
    opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION THREE
    PIER’ANGELA SPACCIA,                                           B319774
    Plaintiff and Appellant,                                 Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. BS174401
    v.
    CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
    EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT
    SYSTEM,
    Defendant and Respondent.
    APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
    Angeles County, James C. Chalfant, Judge. Affirmed.
    Law Office of Robert F. Keehn and Robert F. Keehn for
    Plaintiff and Appellant.
    Mathew G. Jacobs, General Counsel, Elizabeth Yelland
    Assistant Chief Counsel, and Preet Kaur, Senior Attorney, for
    Defendant and Respondent.
    _______________________________________
    INTRODUCTION
    Public pension systems exist to induce and reward faithful
    public service and it is well established that public employee
    pension rights are protected under the contract clause of the
    California Constitution. In the wake of several incidents of
    financial corruption involving public employees, the Legislature
    adopted the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of
    2013 (PEPRA), designed to close certain loopholes, curb pension
    abuse, and discourage corruption. Among other things, the
    legislation provided that a public employee convicted of a job-
    related felony forfeits pension benefits earned during the time of
    the commission of the felony. (Gov. Code, § 7522.72, subds. (b)(1),
    (c) (forfeiture provision).)1 Two recent court of appeal decisions2
    have held that the forfeiture provision does not
    unconstitutionally infringe on a public employee’s protected
    pension rights, nor does it violate the prohibition against ex post
    facto laws.
    Plaintiff and appellant Pier’Angela Spaccia was convicted
    in 2013 of numerous job-related felonies stemming from her
    participation in schemes to defraud the citizens and city council
    of the City of Bell.3 In this matter, Spaccia challenges the
    application of the forfeiture provision to her pension benefit by
    the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS).
    1   All undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code.
    2Wilmot v. Contra Costa County Employees’ Retirement Assn. (2021) 
    60 Cal.App.5th 631
     (Wilmot) and Hipsher v. Los Angeles County
    Employees Retirement Assn. (2020) 
    58 Cal.App.5th 671
     (Hipsher).
    3We affirmed most of those convictions in People v. Spaccia (2017) 
    12 Cal.App.5th 1278
     (Spaccia).
    2
    The trial court denied her petition for a writ of mandate and a
    writ of administrative mandamus barring CalPERS from
    applying the forfeiture provision. She appeals, asserting that the
    forfeiture provision cannot be applied to her because she started
    receiving her pension benefits before the forfeiture provision was
    enacted. We find Spaccia’s argument unpersuasive. Instead, we
    follow Wilmot and affirm.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    1.    Spaccia’s Criminal Convictions
    Spaccia was employed by the City of Bell from 2003 to
    2010, first as the assistant to the city manager and then as the
    assistant city manager. The city council terminated her
    employment in July 2010 amidst a highly publicized corruption
    scandal involving Spaccia and others. Spaccia was arrested in
    September 2010 and charged with more than 50 counts of job-
    related criminal conduct.
    In Spaccia, supra, 
    12 Cal.App.5th 1278
    , we summarized in
    detail the evidence presented at the jury trial. For present
    purposes, it is sufficient to say that from the outset of her
    employment through her dismissal by the city council, Spaccia
    participated in multiple schemes designed to increase beyond all
    reasonable limits the salaries, fringe benefits, and retirement
    benefits for herself and others employed by the City of Bell. For
    example, Spaccia’s annual salary rose from approximately
    $102,000 to more than $340,000 over just seven years with no
    change in job responsibilities. In addition, the city funded her
    retirement savings plan in the maximum allowable amount and
    purchased additional service credit for her, she earned vacation
    and sick leave accruals at an excessive rate and received monthly
    3
    checks cashing out the value of those accruals, and she received
    multiple unauthorized loans from the city in amounts exceeding
    $100,000 per loan. Spaccia also designed and implemented a
    supplemental pension plan intended to provide substantial
    retirement benefits for only herself and the city manager. (See 
    id.
    at pp. 1282–1286.)
    In December 2013, after a lengthy trial, a jury convicted
    Spaccia of multiple felonies relating to the City of Bell scandal
    including one count of conspiracy to misappropriate public funds
    in violation of Penal Code section 182, subdivision (a)(1), four
    counts of conflict of interest in violation of Government Code
    sections 1090 and 1097, and one count of unlawful secretion of an
    official record in violation of Government Code section 6200. We
    affirmed those convictions and they are now final.4 (Spaccia,
    supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1281, 1298.)
    2.       Spaccia’s Retirement Benefits
    In October 2010, Spaccia submitted a request for a service
    retirement to CalPERS.5 She requested that CalPERS use her
    final compensation at the City of Bell to calculate her retirement
    benefit allowance. CalPERS declined and Spaccia requested an
    administrative hearing. In the interim, Spaccia began receiving
    retirement benefits in December 2010.
    4The court sentenced Spaccia to an aggregate determinate term of
    11 years eight months and imposed a victim restitution order in the
    amount of $8,254,776.
    5   She also submitted a request for an industrial disability retirement.
    4
    In July 2013, the Board of Administration of CalPERS
    (Board) issued its final decision regarding Spaccia’s pension.6 In
    sum, and for reasons not pertinent here, the Board determined
    that Spaccia’s retirement allowance should be calculated using
    her initial salary with the City of Bell and that the five years of
    service credit purchased for her by the city should be excluded
    from the benefit calculation.
    In late April 2014, CalPERS contacted Spaccia to advise
    her that it had become aware of her 2013 job-related felony
    convictions and that a portion of her retirement benefit was
    subject to forfeiture under section 7522.72.7 Specifically,
    6Like the trial court, we take judicial notice of the Board’s decision.
    (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (c), 459, subd. (a).)
    7 Subdivisions (b) and (c) of section 7522.72 provide, as pertinent here:
    “(b)(1) If a public employee is convicted by a state or federal trial court
    of any felony under state or federal law for conduct arising out of or in
    the performance of his or her official duties, in pursuit of the office or
    appointment, or in connection with obtaining salary, disability
    retirement, service retirement, or other benefits, he or she shall forfeit
    all accrued rights and benefits in any public retirement system in
    which he or she is a member to the extent provided in subdivision (c)
    and shall not accrue further benefits in that public retirement system,
    effective on the date of the conviction. [¶] … [¶] (c)(1) A member shall
    forfeit all the rights and benefits earned or accrued from the earliest
    date of the commission of any felony described in subdivision (b) to the
    forfeiture date, inclusive. The rights and benefits shall remain forfeited
    notwithstanding any reduction in sentence or expungement of the
    conviction following the date of the member’s conviction. Rights and
    benefits attributable to service performed prior to the date of the first
    commission of the felony for which the member was convicted shall not
    be forfeited as a result of this section. [¶] (2) Paragraph (1) shall apply
    to the extent permissible by law. [¶] (3) For purposes of this
    subdivision, ‘forfeiture date’ means the date of the conviction.”
    5
    CalPERS had determined that the seven years of service credit
    Spaccia accrued between February 1, 2003, the earliest date of
    the commission of a felony, and September 29, 2010, her last date
    on payroll, would be forfeited and would result in a reduction in
    her monthly retirement benefit.
    3.    This Action
    Spaccia initiated the present case in July 2018. The
    operative verified amended petition asserts six causes of action
    seeking a traditional writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085), a
    writ of administrative mandamus (Id., § 1094.5), damages (Id.,
    § 1095), and asserting violations of the contracts clauses, takings
    clauses, and due process clauses of the United States and
    California Constitutions. Spaccia asked the court to direct
    CalPERS to recalculate her retirement benefit by using her
    highest 12-month salary (i.e., the inflated $340,123 salary she
    was receiving when the city council terminated her employment)
    and by including the service credit purchased for Spaccia by the
    City of Bell. She also asked the court for an injunction barring
    CalPERS from applying section 7522.72 to cause the forfeiture of
    service credit earned during her tenure at the City of Bell.
    The court stayed the proceedings until the California
    Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of section 7522.72.
    (See Alameda County Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. v. Alameda County
    Employees’ Retirement Assn. (2020) 
    9 Cal.5th 1032
     (Alameda).)
    4.    Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
    In August 2021, CalPERS moved for judgment on the
    pleadings. Specifically, CalPERS noted that two recent appellate
    court opinions applying Alameda, Wilmot and Hipsher, had held
    that section 7522.72’s forfeiture provision could be applied
    6
    retroactively to retired public employees without running afoul of
    either the contract clause of the California Constitution or the
    constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. CalPERS argued,
    therefore, that its retroactive application of section 7522.72 to
    Spaccia’s retirement benefit, which resulted in the forfeiture of
    approximately seven years of service credit, was permissible and
    rendered her additional claims moot.
    Spaccia opposed the motion, contending that neither
    Hipsher nor Wilmot was controlling. Specifically, Spaccia argued
    that section 7522.72 could not be applied in her situation
    because, unlike the plaintiffs in Hipsher and Wilmot, she had
    been receiving pension benefits for several years before the
    forfeiture provision was adopted by the Legislature.
    5.    Order Granting CalPERS’s Motion
    The court granted CalPERS’s motion for judgment on the
    pleadings. After reciting the factual background, the court
    summarized the controlling law as set forth in Alameda, Hipsher,
    and Wilmot. In Alameda, the court had articulated a test for
    analyzing constitutional contract claims in the pension context
    and applied that test to a different provision of the 2013
    legislation. Subsequently, Hipsher and Wilmot applied that test
    to the forfeiture provision at issue and both courts concluded that
    the forfeiture statute did not violate the contract clause of the
    California Constitution. And in Wilmot, the Court of Appeal
    concluded that the forfeiture law could be applied retroactively to
    a former public employee who, like Spaccia, had retired before
    the 2013 legislation’s effective date. Accordingly, the court found
    that CalPERS permissibly applied the forfeiture provision in its
    determination of Spaccia’s retirement benefits, resulting in the
    7
    forfeiture of all benefits earned during her tenure at the City of
    Bell.
    6.    Dismissal and Appeal
    By minute order dated December 16, 2021, the court noted
    that it had granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings “on
    the bulk of the case” and that Spaccia had agreed to dismiss the
    remainder of the case without prejudice. The order also stated
    that, “[p]ursuant to agreement of counsel, the case is ordered
    dismissed this date.” No judgment of dismissal was signed or
    entered by the court.
    Spaccia subsequently filed a request for dismissal asking
    the Clerk of the Court to dismiss the first and second causes of
    action with prejudice and to dismiss the remaining causes of
    action without prejudice, “in order to expedite a possible appeal.”
    The clerk entered the dismissal as requested on February 4,
    2022. Spaccia timely appeals. (See Flowers v. Prasad (2015) 
    238 Cal.App.4th 930
    , 935–936 [noting “ ‘ “appellate courts treat a
    voluntary dismissal with prejudice as an appealable order if it
    was entered after an adverse ruling by the trial court in order to
    expedite an appeal of the ruling” ’ ”].)
    DISCUSSION
    Spaccia contends the forfeiture provision in section
    7522.72, subdivision (c)(1), cannot be applied to her because she
    began receiving pension benefits long before the passage of the
    2013 legislation which enacted that provision. We conclude such
    retroactive application is constitutionally permissible.
    8
    1.    Standard of Review
    A judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendant is
    appropriate when the complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to
    state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(ii).)
    A motion for judgment on the pleadings is equivalent to a
    demurrer and is governed by the same de novo standard of
    review. (Adams v. Bank of America, N.A. (2020) 
    51 Cal.App.5th 666
    , 670–671.) All properly pleaded, material facts are deemed
    true, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or
    law. (Ibid.) Courts may consider judicially noticeable matters in
    the motion as well. (Ibid.; People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor
    Transportation, Inc. (2014) 
    59 Cal.4th 772
    , 777.)
    2.    The court properly granted the motion for judgment
    on the pleadings.
    A public employee’s right to a pension is well established.
    (Alameda, supra, 9 Cal. 5th at p. 1074.) The vested rights
    doctrine, as it is known, is grounded in the federal and state
    constitutions and significantly restricts a state’s ability to enact
    laws that substantially impair an employee’s existing pension
    rights. (Id. at pp. 1074–1075.) Although a public employee has no
    express contractual rights in a pension plan created by statute,
    “such plans create implied contractual rights that are protected
    against legislative impairment by the contracts clause.” (Id. at
    p. 1076; Cal. Const., art. 1, § 9.) Public employee pension systems
    exist to induce and reward long and faithful public service. (See,
    e.g., Hipsher, supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 692.)
    A public employee’s pension rights are not absolute,
    however, as our Supreme Court has made clear over more than
    60 years. As pertinent here, in 1955, the court articulated a test
    9
    to be applied to legislative measures affecting public employees’
    pension rights. (Allen v. City of Long Beach (1955) 
    45 Cal.2d 128
    ,
    131 (Allen I).) Two years ago, in Alameda, the Court reaffirmed
    that test with an added component: “In evaluating the
    constitutionality of modifications to a public employee pension
    plan, Allen I requires a court first to determine whether the
    modification imposes disadvantages on affected employees,
    relative to the preexisting pension plan, and, if so, whether the
    disadvantages are accompanied by comparable new advantages.
    Assuming the disadvantages are not offset, the court must then
    determine whether the legislative body’s purpose in making the
    changes was sufficient, for constitutional purposes, to justify an
    impairment of pension rights. Although public employee pension
    plans may be modified ‘for the purpose of keeping [the] pension
    system flexible to permit adjustments in accord with changing
    conditions and at the same time maintain the integrity of the
    system,’ to survive contract clause scrutiny such changes ‘must
    bear some material relation to the theory of a pension system and
    its successful operation.’ (Allen I, 
    supra,
     45 Cal.2d at p. 131.)
    Finally, assuming the changes were made for a proper purpose,
    one further analytic step is necessary, as explicated below: The
    Legislature’s decision to impose financial disadvantages on public
    employees without providing comparable advantages will be
    upheld under the contract clause only if providing comparable
    advantages would undermine, or would otherwise be inconsistent
    with, the modification’s constitutionally permissible purpose.”
    (Alameda, supra, 9 Cal. 5th at pp. 1092–1093.)
    Effective January 1, 2013, PEPRA made numerous changes
    to existing public employee pension rights. Those modifications
    include, as pertinent here, the enactment of the pension
    10
    forfeiture provision in section 7522.72, which applies to
    employees who, like Spaccia, were hired before the statute’s
    effective date. (§ 7522.72, subd. (a).) In Cal Fire Local 2881 v.
    California Public Employees’ Retirement System (2019) 
    6 Cal.5th 965
    , our Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to
    PEPRA’s elimination of the option for public employees to
    purchase additional service time. The following year, in Alameda,
    the court rejected a constitutional challenge to PEPRA’s
    modification of the definition of “compensation earnable,” a key
    component in the calculation of retirement benefits. After issuing
    that opinion, the Court transferred two Court of Appeal cases
    that had considered the constitutionality of the forfeiture
    provision—Hipsher and Wilmot—back to the Courts of Appeal for
    reconsideration in light of Alameda. Both Courts of Appeal held,
    as they had initially, that the forfeiture provision is
    constitutional. We find Wilmot to be of particular assistance.
    Wilmot, like the present case, involved an employee whose
    retirement was effective8 before January 1, 2013, and who was
    convicted of a job-related felony after that date. When he was
    advised that the conviction resulted in a partial forfeiture of his
    pension rights under section 7522.72, the employee filed a
    petition for writ of mandate to compel the reinstatement of his
    full retirement benefits. (Wilmot, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at
    pp. 642–644.) The trial court found the forfeiture provision did
    not violate either the contract clause or the ex post facto clause of
    8The plaintiff retired in December 2012. Although he did not receive
    pension benefits until April 2013, those benefits were retroactive to
    December 2012. (Wilmot, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at 641.)
    11
    the California Constitution and the Court of Appeal affirmed. (Id.
    at pp. 645–648.)
    On reconsideration after Alameda, the Court of Appeal
    again upheld the constitutionality of the forfeiture provision as
    applied to the employee. The employee argued that the forfeiture
    provision could not be applied to him because he was retired
    before PEPRA’s effective date, and therefore his pension rights
    were fully vested, “by which Wilmot means fixed and generally
    not subject to alteration without violating two provisions of our
    state constitution.” (Wilmot, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 654.) The
    court first addressed the employee’s contention that the forfeiture
    provision could not be applied to him because the statute only
    applied to “employees” and he was no longer an “employee”
    because he was retired. For reasons not pertinent here, the court
    largely rejected the employee’s distinction. But the court
    assumed, for argument’s sake, that the employee was fully
    retired before January 1, 2013, and went on to address the
    constitutionality of the forfeiture provision. (Id. at pp. 655–656.)
    The Court of Appeal explained the test set forth in the
    Alameda, as follows: “First, the court determines whether the
    legislative change of the status quo imposes ‘an economic
    disadvantage on affected employees and, if so, whether those
    disadvantages are offset in some manner by comparable new
    advantages.’ (Alameda County, supra, 
    9 Cal.5th 1032
    , 1082,
    1092.)
    “Second, the court ‘must then determine whether the
    government’s articulated purpose in making the changes [is]
    sufficient, for constitutional purposes, to justify any impairment
    of pension rights.’ (Alameda County, supra, 
    9 Cal.5th 1032
    , 1082.)
    Constitutionally, ‘modifications of public pension plans are
    12
    permissible only if they relate to the operation of the plan and are
    intended to improve its functioning or adjust to changing
    conditions.’ (Id. at p. 1094.) Stated in other terms, ‘ “alterations of
    employees’ pension rights must bear some material relation to
    the theory of a pension system and its successful operation.” ’
    (Ibid.)
    “Third, even if the changes were made for a proper
    purpose, ‘[t]he Legislature’s decision to impose financial
    disadvantages on public employees without providing comparable
    advantages will be upheld under the contract clause only if
    providing comparable advantages would undermine, or would
    otherwise be inconsistent with, the modification’s constitutionally
    permissible purpose.’ (Alameda County, supra, 
    9 Cal.5th 1032
    ,
    1093.)” (Wilmot, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 656.)
    Applying that test, the court noted that “[t]he first step is
    quickly resolved, for there is no dispute that section 7522.72
    diminished county employees’ pension rights in that no longer
    could an employee commit job-related felonies and face no
    adverse financial consequence. The Pension Reform Act did not
    include any compensatory or comparable advantage.” (Wilmot,
    supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 656.)
    As to the second step, the court considered several sources
    including the legislative history of section 7752.72, a prior
    Supreme Court case, and the public policy concerns underlying
    pension forfeiture. The court summarized its analysis this way:
    “The ultimate question is whether a modification of a pension is
    reasonable, in terms of the parties’ expectations and the
    measure’s necessity, in serving an important public purpose. (See
    Alameda County, supra, 
    9 Cal.5th 1032
    , 1075–1077, 1089, 1100;
    Allen v. City of Long Beach (1955) 
    45 Cal.2d 128
    , 131
    13
    [‘modifications must be reasonable’]; Wallace [v. City of Fresno
    (1954)] 
    42 Cal.2d 180
    , 183–184 [(Wallace)] [courts must
    ‘determine whether the changes made come within the bounds of
    a reasonable modification’].)
    [¶] … [¶]
    “To judge from earlier opinions, the most frequently
    expressed sentiment [regarding pension forfeiture] was that ‘one
    of the primary objectives in providing pensions for public
    employees … is to induce competent persons to enter and remain
    in public employment’ during which they will render ‘ “long-
    continued and faithful services.” ’ (Kern v. City of Long Beach
    [(1947)] 
    29 Cal.2d 848
    , 856; see Carman v. Alvord (1982) 
    31 Cal.3d 318
    , 325, fn. 4 [‘Pensions … help induce faithful public
    service’]; Lix v. Edwards (1978) 
    82 Cal.App.3d 573
    , 578 [‘Pension
    plans … induce continued faithful service by the employee’];
    McCarthy v. City of Oakland (1943) 
    60 Cal.App.2d 546
    , 550
    [‘Many of the pension laws in this state are based primarily upon
    the rule that rewards will be given for the faithful performance of
    future services’]; Klench v. Board of Pension Fd. Commrs. (1926)
    
    79 Cal.App. 171
     [speaking of persons ‘retired from a public
    service to which they devoted many years of faithful adherence’];
    cf. Haywood v. American Fire River Protection Dist. (1998) 
    67 Cal.App.4th 1292
    , 1296, 1304 [‘faithful performance of duty’];
    MacIntyre [v. Retirement Board of City and County of San
    Francisco (1941)] 
    42 Cal.App.2d 734
    , 736 [‘it is an implied
    condition of employment, and hence a condition of [the vesting of
    pension rights] that the duties of the employee shall have been
    faithfully employed’].)
    “Withholding that inducement if the employee’s
    performance is not faithful is an entirely logical response. An
    14
    employee who draws public pay while stealing public property, or
    embezzling public funds, or who uses public facilities or
    equipment to run an illegal business (which is what occurred in
    Hipsher), is the antithesis of a ‘faithful’ servant of the public
    trust. When misconduct turns into outright criminality, it is
    beyond dispute that public service is not being faithfully
    performed. To give such a person a pension would further reward
    misconduct.” (Wilmot, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at pp. 660–662.)
    In sum, as to the second step of the Alameda analysis, the
    court concluded that “discouraging felonious conduct on the job
    qualifies as a measure aimed at ‘preventing abuse of the pension
    system.’ (Alameda County, supra, 
    9 Cal.5th 1032
    , 1054.)”
    (Wilmot, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 662.)
    Finally, as to the third step, the court easily concluded that
    no comparable advantage was required to offset the forfeiture
    provision: “Put bluntly, why should the Legislature be required to
    come up with another way to reward criminality by public
    employees? Why should the Legislature be prevented from
    attacking public employee criminality unless it came up with
    another way for job-related crimes to be paid for with public
    money? Why should the Legislature have to compensate public
    employees not to commit crimes? With eloquent understatement,
    the Hipsher court concluded that accepting Wilmot’s reasoning
    would ‘yield perverse results,’ ‘would do nothing to disincentivize
    the very abuse the [Pension Reform Act] is intended to curb[,]
    would erode public trust,’ and ‘would be antithetical to the
    statute’s purpose by unfairly enriching a malfeasant … employee
    for engaging in the very sort of abusive practices section 7522.72
    is intended to curb.’ (Hipsher, supra, 
    58 Cal.App.5th 671
    , 695,
    683.)
    15
    “With minimal change, language from the Supreme Court
    closes the matter: ‘It would be anomalous, at best, to hold that
    the Constitution requires current employees to be provided an
    equivalent advantage to mitigate the effect of [pension forfeiture]
    that, in the view of the Legislature, are inconsistent with the
    theory underlying the pension system. Requiring comparable
    advantages would be wholly inconsistent with the Legislature’s
    purpose by restoring some form advantages that, in the view of
    the Legislature, should not have been available to county
    employees in the first place.’ (Alameda County, supra, 
    9 Cal.5th 1032
    , 1102.)” (Wilmot, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at pp. 663–664.)
    We agree with our colleagues in the First District and
    adopt Wilmot’s well-reasoned analysis. Regarding the first step of
    the Alameda test, it is plain that the forfeiture provision
    diminished certain employees’ pension rights under CalPERS
    and that PEPRA did not include any compensatory or comparable
    advantage. (See Wilmot, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th at p. 656.) As to
    the second step—whether the forfeiture provision relates to the
    theory of a pension system and its successful operation—we agree
    that withholding pension benefits earned during the time a
    public employee commits an employment-related felony relates to
    the central purpose of the pension system. Many cases have
    observed that the primary purpose of a pension system for public
    employees is to provide deferred compensation as a reward for
    long and faithful public service. (E.g., Hipsher, supra, 58
    Cal.App.5th at p. 692.) Those employees who commit
    employment-related felonies have not faithfully served the
    government or the taxpayers, and rewarding them with pension
    benefits for the period of felonious conduct is antithetical to the
    system’s purpose. Finally, and as to the third step of the Alameda
    16
    test, we agree that it would be absurd to offset the forfeiture
    provision with some compensating measure. In adopting the
    provision, the Legislature recognized that public employees who
    commit job-related felonies have not fulfilled their employment
    agreement and should therefore not be rewarded with deferred
    compensation for a job well done. Any measure designed to offset
    the negative impact of pension forfeiture would entirely
    undermine the Legislature’s purpose.
    We now turn to Spaccia’s contentions on appeal, which are
    few and unavailing. Mainly, Spaccia argues that pension benefits
    may only be modified before the benefits become payable. After
    the first pension benefits payment is made, she asserts, the
    benefits are untouchable and may not be modified for any reason.
    Applying this principle, Spaccia urges that the forfeiture
    provision cannot be applied to reduce her pension benefits
    because she received her first payment in December 2010, several
    years before PEPRA’s effective date of January 1, 2013.
    Spaccia uses brief quotations from several Supreme Court
    cases in support of her argument that this bright-line rule is well
    established. In each of those cases, the Court stated the general
    rule that “a public pension system is subject to the implied
    qualification that the governing body may make reasonable
    modifications and changes before the pension becomes payable
    and that until that time the employee does not have a right to
    any fixed or definite benefits but only to a substantial or
    reasonable pension.” (Miller v. State of California (1977) 
    18 Cal.3d 808
    , 816; see also Wallace, supra, 42 Cal.2d at p. 183
    [summarizing prior holding “that a public pension system is
    subject to the implied qualification that the governing body may
    make reasonable modifications and changes before the pension
    17
    becomes payable and that until that time the employee does not
    have a right to any fixed or definite benefits but only to a
    substantial or reasonable pension”]; Terry v. City of Berkeley
    (1953) 
    41 Cal.2d 698
    , 702–703 [same] (Terry); Packer v. Board of
    Retirement (1950) 
    35 Cal.2d 212
    , 218 (Packer) [“It appears,
    therefore, that both the cases and the policy underlying pensions
    for public employees indicate that any one or more of the various
    benefits offered, including interests created for third persons,
    may be wholly eliminated prior to the time they become payable,
    provided, of course, the employee retains the right to a
    substantial pension.”].) This is, of course, a general rule to which
    there are limited exceptions, as the Court explained in Allen I
    and reaffirmed in Alameda. In any event, neither Packer nor
    Miller considered issues relating to the post-retirement
    modification of pension benefits. (See Wishnev v. The
    Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. (2019) 
    8 Cal.5th 199
    , 217 [“It
    is, of course, ‘axiomatic that a decision does not stand for a
    proposition not considered by the court.’ ”].)
    Of the cases cited by Spaccia, only two (Wallace and Terry)
    considered the modification of pension benefits for persons who
    were already retired and receiving their benefits. Both cases are
    distinguishable. In Terry, for example, the Supreme Court
    explained why pension benefits should not generally be subject to
    reduction after a public employee retires: “In the present case the
    plaintiff had been retired; he had rendered the called-for
    performance; he had done everything possible to entitle him to
    the payment of his pension and all conditions precedent to the
    obligation of the city were fulfilled upon the determination that
    he be retired as a result of his service-connected disability. The
    pension payments are in effect deferred compensation to which
    18
    the pensioner becomes entitled upon the fulfillment of the terms
    of the contract which may not be changed to his detriment by
    subsequent amendment.” (Terry, supra, 41 Cal.2d at p. 703.) As
    we have already explained, however, PEPRA’s forfeiture
    provision applies only to those employees who fail to fulfill the
    terms of their employment by committing felonies related to their
    official duties.
    In Wallace, the Court considered—and struck down—a
    measure that required the forfeiture of pension benefits by
    former employees who committed felonies during retirement.
    Unlike the present case, the measure at issue had been imposed
    before the plaintiff’s retirement but it resulted in the post-
    retirement forfeiture of all the plaintiff’s pension benefits when
    he was convicted of felonious tax fraud. (Wallace, supra, 42
    Cal.2d at pp. 181–182.) Noting the general rule stated above—
    that reasonable modification of pension benefits is generally
    permissible before retirement—the Court observed “that pension
    payments are deferred compensation to which a pensioner
    becomes entitled upon performing all services required under the
    contract and that his retirement because of age ordinarily shows
    that he has done everything necessary to entitle him to payment
    of the pension.” (Id. at pp. 184–185.) The Court concluded that
    the measure was not a reasonable, and therefore permissible,
    modification of pension benefits: “The termination of all pension
    rights upon conviction of a felony after retirement does not
    appear to have any material relation to the theory of the pension
    system or to its successful operation. Rather, the change was
    designed to benefit the city and, as stated in the city’s brief, to
    meet the objections of taxpayers who would be opposed to
    contributing funds for the maintenance of a pensioner who had
    19
    been convicted of a felony. At the time of the amendment,
    Wallace had obtained substantial rights by reason of his services,
    and the amendment in effect operated as a condition subsequent
    to terminate a pension which he had fully earned.” (Id. at p. 185.)
    Again, the court invoked the language of contracts and prohibited
    pension forfeiture by an employee who had fully performed his
    obligations—a circumstance not present here. In sum, Spaccia’s
    case citations and isolated quotations do not assist her, nor do
    they persuade us to reject Wilmot.
    Spaccia also attempts to distinguish her case from Wilmot,
    and thus avoid its application, based on the timing of her first
    pension benefits payment. She asserts, “Wilmot was not binding
    because that case only reached the issue of whether PEPRA could
    be applied to a retired public employee; Wilmot didn’t reach the
    question of whether PEPRA can be applied to a former public
    employee receiving benefits prior to PEPRA’s effective date.” In
    Wilmot, as noted ante, the plaintiff submitted his application for
    retirement benefits in December 2012, but he did not begin
    receiving pension checks until April 2013, after the forfeiture
    provision was in effect. Of course, the benefits were paid
    retroactively to December 2012. (Wilmot, supra, 60 Cal.App.5th
    at p. 641.) Spaccia emphasizes that she began receiving pension
    checks in 2010, before the forfeiture provision was in effect,
    unlike the plaintiff in Wilmot. We fail to see how this distinction
    makes a difference and Spaccia provides no specific analysis on
    this point. The cases she references make no distinction between
    retirees who have received their first pension benefits check and
    retirees who have not. And she cites no statutory provision
    making such a distinction. Instead, Spaccia simply asserts that
    this factual distinction is dispositive. We see no logical reason
    20
    that this specific circumstance is relevant and in the absence of
    substantive explanation from Spaccia, we reject the argument.
    (E.g., Kurinij v. Hanna & Morton (1997) 
    55 Cal.App.4th 853
    , 867
    [“[A]n appellant must present argument and authorities on each
    point to which error is asserted or else the issue is waived.”].)
    DISPOSITION
    The order denying Spaccia’s petition for writs of mandate
    and administrative mandamus is affirmed. CalPERS shall
    recover its costs on appeal.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
    LAVIN, J.
    WE CONCUR:
    EDMON, P. J.
    HEIDEL, J.*
    * Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief
    Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
    21
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B319774

Filed Date: 7/21/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/21/2023