Well, it looks like phaster beat me to the punch (on a current thread) as to the conclusion of this extremely lengthy, colossally-expensive, go-nowhere litigation (as predicted lo-o-o-ong ago). Of course, City’s humongous legal tab was mainly picked up from Teeter Funds garnered from its property taxpayers (but likely not phaster to a large extent, due to his gigantic Prop 58 reduction in his property taxes … lol).
The 4th DCA-1 in San Diego now must fashion a remedy for all those city employees hired within a particular window who were involuntarily thrown into the ill-fated Prop B retirement tier, both vested and unvested! Was anyone here actually expecting a different outcome?
Um, phaster?? As I have posted here many times before, CA Government Code section 3500 et seq. is well-settled LAW in CA. Why on earth would SCOTUS bother to review this case?? They only agree to hear about 9% of cases brought to them.
As you may recall, the cities of Vallejo and San Bernardino filed for municipal bankruptcy in the fairly recent past and neither city was able to discharge their pension obligations made in good faith during employee collective bargaining under the MMBA (CA GC sec 3500 et seq). For reference, see:
phaster and all others here guilty of continually lambasting CA state and local government pensions must now accept the results of the CA Supreme Court decision to reverse the 4th DCA-1’s opinion and order it to decide how these thousands of affected City employees will be made whole.
