Sonoma County Ass'n of Retired Employees v. Sonoma County

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority that the district court properly dismissed the Complaint in this case for failure to state a claim. However, I disagree that the district court abused its discretion in denying further leave to amend.

Preliminarily, I do not share the majority’s view that the Plaintiff plausibly pled a cause of action predicated on an express contract between the employee association and Sonoma County, or that the County impliedly agreed to provide healthcare benefits to retirees into perpetuity. See Majority Opinion, pp. 1113-14 (recognizing that the Plaintiff sought relief predicated on the existence of an express contract); see also Retired Employees Assn. of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (REAOC II), 52 Cal.4th 1171 , 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 779 , 266 P.3d 287, 295 (2011) (same).

In its opposition to Sonoma County’s Motion to Dismiss its First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff represented to the court that no implied contract was at issue. Likewise, in a motion memo filed before this court following the REAOC II decision, the Plaintiff characterized its Complaint as alleging that Sonoma County’s promise to provide healthcare…

Opinion by Judge IKUTA; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge RAWLINSON.

OPINION

The Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees (Association) sued Sono-ma County, alleging that the County had breached its obligation to provide certain vested healthcare benefits in perpetuity. Although the County had not expressly promised to provide these benefits, the Association alleged that it had implicitly done so. The California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Retired Employees Ass’n of Orange County, Inc. v. County of Orange (REAOC II) recognized that a county may form a contract with implied terms under specified circumstances. 52 Cal.4th 1171 , 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 779 , 266 P.3d 287, 289 (2011). In light of REAOC II, the district court erred in dismissing the Association’s complaint with prejudice.

I

This case arises from the County’s efforts to reduce its liability for its retired employees’ healthcare benefits, which it has subsidized since at least 1964. In 2007, the County became concerned about the rapidly rising costs of healthcare benefits, which had doubled since 2002. In August 2008, the County’s Board of Supervisors enacted a resolution to limit the County’s…

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SONOMA COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF No. 10-17873

RETIRED EMPLOYEES,

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:09-cv-04432- v. CW

SONOMA COUNTY ,

Defendant-Appellee. OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Claudia A. Wilken, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted June 13, 2012—San Francisco, California

Filed February 25, 2013

Before: Proctor Hug, Jr., Johnnie B. Rawlinson, and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Ikuta; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Rawlinson S ONOMA C NTY . A SS’N OF R ETIRED E MP. V . S ONOMA C NTY .

SUMMARY*

Civil Rights/ Health Care

The panel vacated the district court’s dismissal of a complaint brought by the Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees alleging that the County of Sonoma had breached its obligation to provide certain vested healthcare benefits in perpetuity.

The Association alleged that although the County had not expressly promised to provide these benefits, it had implicitly done so. The panel held that in…