Latest News
Proposition B was the San Diego ballot initiative that went into effect July 20, 2012 and amended the City Charter to close the City’s pension system to all new hires except for City police officers. This ballot measure has been in litigation since its inception. Please visit our FAQ’s for more information about the history of Proposition B.
Recently, opponents of Proposition B gained momentum in their quest to overturn the ballot measure: On January 5, 2021, a San Diego state trial court heard oral arguments in this matter and issued a verbal ruling from the bench, declaring Proposition B to be invalid. Currently, the court is drafting a written statement of its decision, which will direct the City Council to erase Proposition B's language from the City Charter. We do not know exactly how this ruling will be implemented – whether it will retroactively provide pension benefits to all City employees who were affected by Proposition B, if these employees will be compensated some other way and begin earning pension benefits prospectively, or if some other resolution will be negotiated. However, it is worth noting that if the trial court's decision is appealed within 60 days of the court’s written statement of decision, any enforcement of the decision may be stalled until the appeal is resolved.
Note: SDCERS is not a party to this litigation. SDCERS administers the City’s pension system pursuant to the relevant provisions of the City Charter and San Diego Municipal Code – it does not play a part in negotiating the pension benefits it is charged with administering.
Learn More...
In March 2016, the Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court’s rulings in favor of SDCERS with one exception related to Safety Members in the Lenhart action. Except for the Lenhart plaintiffs, the plaintiffs appealed the Court of Appeal’s ruling against them to the California Supreme Court. In mid-June, the Supreme Court denied review of the Court of Appeal’s ruling, which effectively ends the litigation of the appealed cases. Learn More...
In 2010, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal ordered SDCERS to correct certain underfunded purchases of service credit. Subsequently, several members filed lawsuits against SDCERS for correcting those purchases. The Superior Court found in favor of SDCERS in several of those lawsuits, and the plaintiffs appealed those rulings. This month, the Court of Appeal issued its rulings, affirming the Superior Court’s rulings in favor of SDCERS with one exception related to Safety Members. That one exception will return to the Superior Court for further proceedings. SDCERS is committed to following the court’s rulings and will keep you updated on further developments. To view the two recent rulings, click here and see the latest Court of Appeal Rulings listed under Abbe vs. SDCERS and City of San Diego and under Baidya vs. SDCERS.
Learn More...
Judge Prager has granted SDCERS’ Motion for Summary Judgment in the Purchase of Service (PSC) Corrections Litigation. The PSC Corrections litigation involves nine lawsuits filed by City and Airport employees with PSC contracts affected by a 2010 Court of Appeal decision relating to underpricing of purchase of service contracts for “air time.”
Learn More...
The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System's (SDCERS) settlement agreement with the City of San Diego in the Substantially Equal lawsuit was approved by Judge Zimmerman today, marking the first time in more than a decade that there is no open litigation between SDCERS and the City. Learn More...
The recent bankruptcy ruling in Detroit has generated considerable speculation about its potential impact on pension benefits for California public employees. SDCERS expects no immediate threat to member pension benefits as a result of the Detroit ruling, nor is there any indication of such a threat in the foreseeable future. Learn More...
The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS) today announced it has reached a settlement agreement with the City of San Diego in the Substantially Equal lawsuit. While there was no final judgment from the court, the settlement lets stand SDCERS’ decades-long application of the "substantially equal" requirement of the City Charter, puts an end to years of litigious spending and marks the first time in more than a decade that there is no open litigation between SDCERS and the City. Learn More...
The U.S. Supreme Court declared the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA) unconstitutional on June 26, 2013. On the same day, the Court determined that challenges of the California Supreme Court’s decision on California’s Proposition 8 did not have standing. This leaves the California Supreme Court’s ruling that Proposition 8’s declaration that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman as unconstitutional intact. While it will take time to determine the full consequences of these rulings, they will have an impact on the tax treatment of benefits paid by SDCERS to members of same-sex marriages.
Learn More...
Judge Zimmerman granted a postponement of the Substantially Equal lawsuit today, following a request by SDCERS and the City of San Diego. The trial had been set to begin July 9 but has now been postponed. A Status Conference is currently set for September 26 to schedule a new trial date.
Learn More...
The San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS) today received a Notice of Withdrawal of Motion for Summary Judgment from City Attorney Jan Goldsmith’s office in the UAL Substantially Equal case, effectively demonstrating SDCERS’ strong position in this matter. The City’s motion was scheduled to be heard before a judge on Monday, April 8th. Learn More...
Mayor Bob Filner and San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System Board President Herb Morgan today publicly urged City Attorney Jan Goldsmith to drop the City’s lawsuit against the Retirement System, calling the case a waste of taxpayer dollars Learn More...
Judge Joseph Zimmerman, the presiding judge for the UAL “Substantially Equal” case between the City of San Diego and the San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS), has announced that the trial date will be continued to July from its previously scheduled date in May. The trial will now begin on Tuesday, July 9th, at 10:00 a.m. at the San Diego Superior Court, 220 W. Broadway, on the fourth floor. Learn More...
Judge Joseph Zimmerman yesterday ruled in support of the San Diego City Employees’ Retirement System (SDCERS) in the UAL Substantially Equal case, denying the City of San Diego’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on both procedural grounds and on the merits. Learn More...
In an unpublished opinion filed on November 10, 2011, the Court of Appeals (Court) issued its ruling on SDCERS' Motion to Change Venue in the Substantially Equal Case. Learn More...
The San Diego City Council has approved an ordinance designed to remove SDCERS' constitutional authority to settle litigation without approval of the Council.On September 13, 2011, the City Council voted unanimously in favor of the ordinance. Proposal of the ordinance came after SDCERS' Board of Administration settled the Italiano/MEA case, after significant deliberation and consideration of the risk in incurring greater litigation costs.
Learn More...
The City Attorney’s office initially assured SDCERS it would not object to SDCERS’ request of the court for a clarification order exempting from correction affected PSC contracts of those Members in DROP before November 20, 2007.On Monday, April 11, however, the City Attorney’s office instead filed with the court an opposition to SDCERS’ request (see PDF of Opposition, at the bottom of this page). Learn More...
A hearing has been set for April 22, 2011, regarding the matter of certain Active DROP Members with affected Purchase of Service Credit (PSC) contracts, related to the PSC Correction process. Learn More...
Superior Court Judge Joan M. Lewis has granted SDCERS' Motion for a Change of Venue to Los Angeles County, in the City of San Diego's lawsuit against SDCERS commonly referred to as the "substantially equal" case. The lawsuit seeks to include annual investment gains and losses in the calculation of employee and City contribution rates. However, since SDCERS' inception nearly 90 years ago, investment gains and losses have never been included in the calculation of employee contribution rates. Learn More...
SDCERS' Board of Administration recently took two important actions regarding the "substantially equal" language contained in City Charter section 143, following three public sessions in which the topic was discussed and analyzed extensively. Learn More...
On May 3, 2010, SDCERS received a Petition of Writ of Mandate from the City of San Diego requesting that the Superior Court of California command SDCERS to incorporate an equal share of investment losses into the calculation of City employee contributions. Learn More...
The Court issued its final ruling on November 13, 2008. In it, the Court ordered the SDCERS Board to set aside the Board's November, 2007 decision to continue to amortize the PSC funding shortfall through the City's existing unfunded actuarial liability. Learn More...
The California Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, Division 1, has dismissed the City Attorney's appeal in SDCERS vs. City of San Diego, Case No. GIC 841845. Click below to read the press release. Learn More...