Canova

Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation District Employee Pension Plan

Good Law
150 Cal. App. 4th 1487·59 Cal. Rptr. 3d 587
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 11, 2007D048156California4,074 words

Opinion

Opinion

McINTYRE, J.

Gary Canova, Virginia Canova, Ronald Shelton, Michael Hodges and Jimmie Sexton (collectively Plaintiffs), current or former employees of Imperial Irrigation District (the District), appeal a judgment entered in favor of the District, the Trustees of Imperial Irrigation District Employee Pension Plan and the Board of Directors of the Imperial Irrigation District Employee Pension Plan (collectively Defendants) after the trial court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the claim filing requirements of the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 900 et seq. (the Claims Act), all undesignated statutory references are to this code).

In this case, we conclude that neither declaratory nor injunctive relief was available and that mandamus could not be used to invalidate changes made to Plaintiffs’ retirement plan because they had an adequate monetary remedy and were required to file a timely claim. Mandamus, however, may be appropriate to attempt to invalidate Defendants’ termination of Plaintiffs’ defined benefit plan and compel Defendants to perform their contractual duties under the defined benefit plan as this claim did not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.