Cranston Police Retirees Action Committee v. The City of Cranston, by and through its Finance Director Robert Strom and its City Treasurer David Capuano, 208 A.3d 557

Background

Cranston enacted ordinances in April 2013 temporarily (10 years) suspending the 3% compounded COLA for police and fire retirees in the city pension plan to address a severe pension funding crisis and comply with the Rhode Island Retirement Security Act funding-improvement requirements.
CPRAC (a nonprofit of retirees who opted out of a separate 2013 settlement) sued the City, Mayor, and council members asserting Contract Clause, Takings Clause, breach of contract, Open Meetings Act, res judicata/collateral estoppel and other claims; a six-day bench trial in Superior Court resulted in judgment for defendants; this appeal followed.
The trial justice found (1) the COLA was a vested contractual right, (2) the 2013 ordinances substantially impaired that right, but (3) the impairment was justified as reasonable and necessary to serve a significant legitimate public purpose (remedying the fiscal emergency and preserving state aid), so no Contract Clause violation.
The court treated the COLA-suspension claim under regulatory-takings principles (Penn Central) and granted summary judgment for defendants because the suspension was prospective, temporary, and partial (not a physical taking), so no compensable taking.
The trial court granted legislative-immunity protections to council members and non‑city defendants, denied CPRAC standing to sue in Superior Court under the Open Meetings Act (statute permits entities to file complaints with the AG but only individuals to sue directly in Superior Court), allowed the City to amend its answer shortly before trial, and awarded partial costs to the City.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Contract Clause impairment and burden allocation	Ordinances unlawfully impaired vested COLA; trial justice misallocated burden and over‑deferred to City	City justified impairment by fiscal emergency; burden of production should shift to state	Court affirmed: plaintiff proved substantial impairment; burden‑shifting to City was appropriate; City met credible-evidence showing of significant public purpose and that impairment was reasonable and necessary — no Contract Clause violation
Expert testimony (Fornia)	Trial justice prejudged and minimized expert, undermining plaintiff’s least‑drastic‑alternative proof	City: Fornia’s methodology/support were weak and the court properly discounted parts of his opinions	Court affirmed: trial justice did not abuse discretion in weighing and giving limited weight to parts of Fornia’s testimony
Takings Clause	COLA suspension is a taking (not merely regulation); factual disputes precluded summary judgment	Suspension was regulatory, prospective, temporary, and partial — no compensable taking	Court affirmed summary judgment for defendants under Penn Central: not a per se or categorical taking
Open Meetings Act standing	CPRAC (entity) has standing to sue in Superior Court for OMA; AG’s determination showed violation	Statute §42‑46‑8 permits entities to complain to AG but only individuals to file directly in Superior Court	Court affirmed: statutory text is unambiguous — entities may file with AG but only individuals may sue directly in Superior Court; CPRAC lacked Superior Court OMA standing

Key Cases Cited

United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1 (1977) (Contracts Clause limits state impairments of contract and government self‑interest must not receive complete deference)
Energy Reserves Group, Inc. v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 459 U.S. 400 (1983) (three‑part Contracts Clause test; state must show significant and legitimate public purpose if impairment is substantial)
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (framework for multi‑factor regulatory takings analysis)
Bogan v. Scott‑Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) (legislative acts by officials are protected by legislative immunity)
Nonnenmacher v. City of Warwick, 722 A.2d 1199 (R.I. 1999) (adopts federal Contracts Clause analysis and recognizes municipal application)
Arena v. City of Providence, 919 A.2d 379 (R.I. 2007) (pension benefits vesting analysis under Rhode Island law)
Buffalo Teachers Fed’n v. Tobe, 464 F.3d 362 (2d Cir. 2006) (factors for assessing reasonableness and necessity of impairment; government purpose must be more than sovereign financial benefit)