Khan

The Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System (LACERS) appeals from a judgment in favor of Abraham Khan (Khan) granting his petition for writ of mandate compelling LACERS to approve his *103 request for concurrent deferred retirement benefits with LACERS and the Judges’ Retirement System (JRS). 1 The sole issue on appeal is whether LACERS and JRS have reciprocity provisions such that Khan, a judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County who had worked for the City of Los Angeles (City) as a city attorney, may retire from LACERS at his higher judicial salary. We conclude they do not, and reverse and remand with directions that the trial court enter judgment in favor of LACERS.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Allegations of Judge Khan’s Petition for Writ of Mandate.

Respondent Khan is a member of both LACERS and JRS. From approximately 1978 through 1988, Judge Khan worked in various capacities for the City, with his last position being that of deputy city attorney. Upon leaving employment with the City, Judge Khan elected not to cash out his benefits with LACERS. In 1988, Judge Khan was appointed a judge of the Los Angeles Municipal Court and was…

Dissenting. — I would affirm the judgment because Assembly Bill No. 1099 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1099) provides that judges who retire under both the Judges’ Retirement System (JRS) and the Los Angeles City Employees’ Retirement System (LACERS) are entitled to have their LACERS retirement benefits calculated using their highest salary earned under the systems.

In 1997, the City of Los Angeles and the Public Employees’ Retirement System (PERS) entered into an agreement pursuant to Government Code sections 20351 and 20353 1 whereby retirees of both systems would be entitled to have their retirement benefits calculated using their highest salary earned under the systems.

In 2001, Assembly Bill 1099 amended section 20639 to add the Judges’ Retirement System II: “The compensation eamable during any period of *118 service as a member of the Judges’ Retirement System, the Judges’ Retirement System U, the Legislators’ Retirement System, or the Defined Benefit Program of the State Teachers’ Retirement Plan shall be considered compensation eamable as a member of [PERS] for purposes of computing final compensation for the member, if he or she retires concurrently under both…

The Los Angeles City Employees' Retirement System (LACERS) appeals from a judgment in favor of Abraham Khan (Khan) granting his petition for writ of mandate compelling LACERS to approve his request for concurrent deferred retirement benefits with LACERS and the Judges' Retirement System (JRS). [1] The sole issue on appeal is whether LACERS and JRS have reciprocity provisions such that Khan, a judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County who had worked for the City of Los Angeles (City) as a city attorney, may retire from LACERS at his higher judicial salary. We conclude they do not, and reverse and remand with directions that the trial court enter judgment in favor of LACERS.

Respondent Khan is a member of both LACERS and JRS. From approximately 1978 through 1988, Judge Khan worked in various capacities for the City, with his last position being that of deputy city attorney. Upon leaving employment with the City, Judge Khan elected not to cash out his benefits with LACERS. In 1988, Judge Khan was appointed a judge of the Los Angeles Municipal Court and was elevated to the superior court in 2000. By reason of his judicial appointments, Judge Khan was eligible to…