Richter v. Ausmus

Background

Julia Richter, a former Oakland Police Department employee, alleged that defendants delayed processing her industrial disability retirement application. She alleged that the delay was connected to an investigation, her termination effective March 28, 2020, and the City’s failure to forward her application to the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS). After a hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings, an administrative law judge concluded that the City should have timely processed the application. The City eventually forwarded it to CalPERS on January 13, 2023, and CalPERS approved Richter’s application and paid benefits retroactive to March 28, 2020.

The remaining issues concerned whether Richter could recover damages for the delay, including interest between the end of her City employment and the payment of her benefits. The operative claims included claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, for denial of procedural due process, denial of equal protection, and an allegedly unlawful taking of disability benefits. Richter also asserted a claim under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, which provides a procedure for challenging certain administrative decisions.

Rulings

Judge William H. Orrick denied Richter’s motion for partial summary judgment. He also granted in part and denied in part the Oakland defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment and defendant Stanfield’s motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment.

The court denied the motions as to Richter’s procedural-due-process claim. The court concluded that receiving the benefits later did not, by itself, resolve Richter’s allegations that improper delay caused liability or damages, including possible interest. The court also denied the motions as to Richter’s Takings Clause claim because defendants had not shown that the claim, including a claim for interest damages, was foreclosed as a matter of California law.

The court granted summary judgment to defendants on Richter’s equal-protection claim and dismissed that claim with prejudice. The court found that Richter’s allegations plausibly suggested a financial motive to avoid paying benefits, but did not adequately allege disability-based discriminatory intent by any individual defendant despite multiple opportunities to amend.

The court granted summary judgment to defendants on Richter’s section 1094.5 claim. The administrative decision Richter had previously sought to challenge had been issued, and Richter did not argue that the administrative law judge’s decision was wrong or that further relief under section 1094.5 was warranted.

The court also declined to consider new theories concerning the calculation of Richter’s CalPERS benefits, a mandatory-duty theory under California Government Code section 815.6, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, breach of fiduciary duty, and requests for interest, penalties, costs, and damages to the extent those theories were not part of the operative complaint or had previously been rejected. The only claims remaining were the section 1983 procedural-due-process and Takings Clause claims based on the alleged delay in processing Richter’s application.

Next steps

The court stayed the proceedings while the parties attend a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson. If the conference is unsuccessful, the stay will be lifted for three months of discovery, followed by additional summary-judgment motions and, if necessary, a trial.