Attorneys for Plaintiffs MICHAEL R. O NEAL, RHONDA BIESEMEIER, and DENNIS J. NASRAWI SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 MICHAEL A. CONGER (State Bar # LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. CONGER P.O. Box San Dieguito Road, Suite -1 Rancho Santa Fe, California 0 Telephone: ( -000 Facsimile: ( -0 Attorneys for Plaintiffs MICHAEL R. O NEAL, RHONDA BIESEMEIER, and DENNIS J. NASRAWI SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS MICHAEL R. O NEAL, RHONDA BIESEMEIER, and DENNIS J. NASRAWI, v. Plaintiffs, STANISLAUS COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, and DOES 1-0, Defendants. CASE NO: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION Date: September, 01 Time: :00 a.m. Dept. Judge: Hon. Leslie C. Nichols Complaint Filed: November 0, 00 Trial Date: October, TO ALL PARTIES AND TO THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September, 01, at :00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in Department of the above-entitled court, located at 00 th Street, Modesto, California, plaintiffs Michael R. O Neal, Rhonda Biesemeier and Dennis J. Nasrawi ( plaintiffs will and hereby do move for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication of the causes of action alleged in their consolidated actions. This motion is made pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section c, subdivisions (a, (c, (f(1, and (o(, on the grounds that there are no triable issues of fact and the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment, or summary adjudication of individual causes of action, as a matter of law, because: 1

2 (A StanCERA s uses of trust assets to offset the actuarially-required, employer contributions of the County of Stanislaus ( County was imprudent, a violation of section of article XVI of the California Constitution, and a breach of fiduciary duty; (B StanCERA s transfer of $0 million in non-valuation reserves to valuation reserves for the sole purpose of minimizing the actuarially-required, employer contributions of the County was imprudent, a violation of section of article XVI of the California Constitution, and a breach of fiduciary duty; and (C StanCERA s adoption of a schedule of negative amortization of the County s unfunded liability was a violation of Government Code section., imprudent, a violation of section of article XVI of the California Constitution, and a breach of fiduciary duty. In accordance with rule.0 of the California Rules of Court, Award requests the following adjudications: ADJUDICATION NUMBER 1 The Stanislaus County Employees Retirement Association ( StanCERA violated the County Employees Retirement Law of and the California Constitution by using $ million of trust fund assets to offset the County of Stanislaus ( County employer contribution for the fiscal year July 1, 00, to June 0, 0. ADJUDICATION NUMBER StanCERA s use of $ million of trust fund assets to offset the County s employer contribution for the fiscal year July 1, 00, to June 0, 0, violated the California ADJUDICATION NUMBER StanCERA violated the County Employees Retirement Law of and the California Constitution by using $1. million of trust fund assets to offset the County s employer contribution for the fiscal year July 1, 0, to June 0, 0. ADJUDICATION NUMBER StanCERA s use of $1. million of trust fund assets to offset the County s employer contribution for the fiscal year July 1, 0, to June 0, 0, violated the California

3 ADJUDICATION NUMBER StanCERA violated the County Employees Retirement Law of and the California Constitution by using $1. million of trust fund assets to offset the County s employer contribution for the fiscal year July 1, 0, to June 0, 01. ADJUDICATION NUMBER StanCERA s use of $1. million of trust fund assets to offset the County s employer contribution for the fiscal year July 1, 0, to June 0, 01, violated the California ADJUDICATION NUMBER StanCERA s use of $0 million of trust fund assets to reduce the County s employer contribution for the fiscal year July 1, 00, to June 0, 0, violated the California ADJUDICATION NUMBER StanCERA violated Government Code. by adopting a negative amortization schedule. ADJUDICATION NUMBER StanCERA s adoption of a negative amortization schedule violated the California Constitution because no reasonably prudent trustee would done so. The plaintiffs request the court to enter a summary judgment awarding plaintiffs the following relief: (1 an injunction prohibiting StanCERA from using trust fund assets to offset the actuarially-determined, employer contributions of the County of Stanislaus; ( an injunction prohibiting StanCERA from minimizing the employer contributions of the County of Stanislaus by transferring non-valuation reserves to valuation reserves; ( an injunction prohibiting StanCERA from adopting a schedule of

4 negative amortization of the unfunded liabilities of the County of Stanislaus and mandating that StanCERA adopt a new schedule of positive amortization of such unfunded liabilities; ( an injunction mandating that StanCERA add to its actuarially-determined, employer contribution for the County of StanCERA, for the period July 1, 01, through June 0, 0, the sum of $. million to compensate the plaintiffs trust fund for the benefits which StanCERA unlawfully conferred upon the County of StanCERA, i.e., the offsets of $ million for the fiscal year ending on June 0, 0, $1. million for the fiscal year ending on June 0, 0, and $1. million for the fiscal year ending on June 0, 01; and ( an injunction mandating that StanCERA transfer and restore $. million from valuation reserves of the County of Stanislaus to nonvaluation reserves. This motion is based upon: (1 this Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication; ( the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication; ( the Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication; ( the Declaration of Michael A. Conger in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication; ( the Declaration of William Sheffler in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Summary Adjudication; ( the Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff s Motion for

5