Three city police officers sued their employer to seek greater retirement benefits. They became sworn officers after a change in the CalPERS retirement benefit formula was negotiated. Yet, they claimed they were entitled to the prior, more generous formula. The city denied their requests.
The officers challenged the city’s decision through petitions for writ, a CalPERS administrative appeal, and a California Superior Court lawsuit. In 2023, the city moved for summary judgment, asserting the officers’ claims had been fully litigated and decided in the previous proceedings. The trial court agreed, applied issue preclusion to the retirement classifications, and entered judgment. The officers appealed.
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in full. The Court agreed that the officers forfeited their arguments for the failure to raise them in the trial court or support them with pertinent law and record citations. The Court also agreed that the officers failed to challenge rulings on their claims for breach of individual employment agreement or declaratory relief. The Court awarded the city its costs on appeal.