Sturgeon

Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles

Bad Law
167 Cal. App. 4th 630·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1585·84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 242
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 10, 2008D050832California10,886 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

Section 19, article VI of the California Constitution requires that the Legislature “prescribe compensation for judges of courts of record.” The duty to prescribe judicial compensation is not delegable. Thus the practice of the County of Los Angeles (the county) of providing Los Angeles County superior court judges with employment benefits, in addition to the compensation prescribed by the Legislature, is not permissible. Accordingly, we must reverse an order granting summary judgment in favor of the county in an action brought by a taxpayer who challenged the validity of the benefits the county provides to its superior court judges.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Judicial Benefits Provided by County

Although the record is not entirely clear, it appears that at some point in the late 1980’s the county began providing its superior and municipal court judges with employment benefits in addition to the salary prescribed by the Legislature. Over the years that program has been expanded and altered as the county has modified the benefits it provides its salaried employees.

Currently, the largest component of benefits provided to judges is the county’s contribution to…

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.