Skip to main content

California Public Employees' Retirement System v. City of San Bernardino

C.D. Cal.December 13, 2013No. Case No. CV 5:13-01952 DMG; Bankruptcy Case No. CV 6:12-28006 MJCited 2 times

Case Details

Judge(s)
Gee
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal/Motion to Dismiss
Circuit
9th Circuit

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court dismissed the case, finding that the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of the City of San Bernardino regarding pension obligations.

Similar Rulings

Martagon
N.D. Tex.Dec 2019
Remanded
Bonneau
1st CircuitNov 2013
Remanded
Association of Retired Employees v. City of Stockton (In re City of Stockton)
CAEBAug 2012
Mixed Result
International Union of Operating Engineers of Eastern Pennsylvania & Delaware Benefit Pension Fund v. N. Abbonizio Contractors
E.D. Pa.Nov 2015
Mixed Result
Briant
Unknown CourtOct 1889

<p>Error to Cass Circuit Court. — Hon. Jas. B. Gantt, Judge.</p> <p>(I) Wken the defendant Jackson became the administrator of the estate of Jacob Fudge, deceased, the debt of Erwin, on which the judgment was rendered in his favor, under which the lands sought to be affected by this proceeding were sold, vested in him, in trust, for the use and benefit of those entitled thereto, under the laws of this state: First, the creditors; second, the-heirs-at-law. It was his duty to pi’eserve the trust fund for those so entitled, as aforesaid. Had he bought in said land at the execution sale, as he might have done, with said trust funds, and taken title to himself, he would have taken and held the land on and subject to the same trusts as aforesaid. When he caused said real estate to be sold and bought 'in, in the names of his wife and her brothers and sisters, the heirs-at-law of said Fudge, paid therefor out of and with said trust, funds, and caused title to same to be conveyed to them, they took and held said land upon and subject to the-same trusts as the said Jackson held said funds — in trust for the use and benefit of 'those entitled thereto under the laws of this state: First, for the creditors; and, second, for the heirs-at-law. 1 Pom. Eq., secs. 422-473; 2 Pom. Eq., secs. 587, 1049, 1077, 1080; 1 Perry-on Trusts [3 Ed.] secs. 127-225; 1 Story’s Eq. [12 Ed.] sec. 322, and note; Davoue v. Fanning, 2 Johns. Ch. 251; Allen v. Gillett, 21 Fed. Rep. 273; Michoud v.. Girod, 4 How. 503; Wolf v. Robinson, 20 Mo. 460; . Smith v. Isaac, 12 Mo. 106; Thornton v. Irwin, 43 Mo. 153; Grumly v. Webb, 44 Mo. 451; Ray v. Qopelin, 47' Mo. 83; Lass v. Sternberg, 50 Mo. 126; Gaines v. Allen, 58 Mo. 545; Kitchen v. Railroad, 69 Mo. 260; Hull v. Yorhis, 45 Mo. 555; Durfee v. Moran, 57 Mo. 374; Roberts v. Mosely, 64 Mo. 507; Baker v. Railroad, 86-Mo. 75; Edwards ?>. Gotschalk,, 25 Mo. App. 549; Harper v. Mansfield, 58 Mo. 17;° Clark v. Drake,. 63-Mo. 354; Meyer v. Jefferson, 5 Mo. App. 250

Remanded

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.