Los Angeles superior court judge rejects county arguments, could end trial expected in April

BY NORBERTO SANTANA JR.
The Orange County Register
Comments 51| Recommend 4
Wednesday, February 11, 2009

A Los Angeles Superior court judge issued a potentially deadly blow this week to the county of Orange in its long-standing lawsuit seeking to rescind generous retirement benefits granted to deputy sheriffs in 2001.

The lawsuit has drawn the attention of policymakers and law enforcement unions across the state because a ruling in favor of the county could unravel pension benefits granted to law enforcement officers statewide.

Judge Helen Bendix, in a tentative ruling late Tuesday, granted the Orange County sheriff's deputies' motion for dismissal. A final hearing is scheduled for Friday. If Bendix's thinking remains unchanged, it could spell the end of the county's legal challenge, which has already cost taxpayers more than $1.5 million in fees.

Attorneys for both sides declined comment on Wednesday.

County Supervisor John Moorlach led the charge on the issue, persuading other supervisors to sue in January 2008.

Known as "3 at 50," the benefit was adopted by county supervisors in 2001 and allows deputies to retire early while also granting them increased benefits. An actuarial study concludes that the benefit adds $187 million to the county's unfunded pension liability, now hovering above the $2 billion mark.

The Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs has argued since the lawsuit was initiated that it was meritless and was generating millions in legal bills for taxpayers. They have said that several law firms told supervisors their strategy was a long shot and criticized the county for continuing with the lawsuit.

Orange County supervisors have argued that the benefit violates the state constitution's limits on debts – because of the obligation incurred – and because the 3 at 50 benefit was granted retroactively.

Yet in a tentative ruling issued last night, Judge Helen Bendix rejected both of the county's arguments, granting two separate AOCDS motions for dismissal.