Harris v. County of Orange
682 F.3d 1126
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Retirees sued County Orange challenging restructuring of retiree health benefits (Subsidy and Grant).
- REAOC previously sued; CA Supreme Court later held vested rights to health benefits may be implied under certain circumstances.
- County separated active and retired pools in 2008, reducing Grant multiplier and halving Grant upon Medicare eligibility, while not compensating retirees with equivalent value.
- District court granted Rule 12(c) judgment, finding Subsidy barred by claim preclusion and Grant not perpetual; FEHA claim deemed unexhausted due to McConnell’s single administrative filing.
- Court found REAOC could not adequately represent Retirees for damages (no privity), so Subsidy damages were not precluded; remanded to reassess Subsidy claims in light of CA Supreme Court decision.
- Court remanded Grant issues to allow amendment to plead specific MOUs/ordinances; FEHA exhaustion reversed based on single filing rule; overall reversal and remand ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to take judicial notice of declaration and MOUs | Retirees rely on MOUs; County did not oppose judicial notice. | (Not explicitly stated as opposing) | Judicial notice granted for REAOC documents and MOUs. |
| Whether Subsidy claims are barred by claim preclusion | Retirees and REAOC lack privity; inadequate representation. | RE AOC adequately represented interests; privity exists. | Preclusion does not bar Subsidy damages; remand to reassess. |
| Whether there was explicit authority requiring perpetual Grant/benefit | MOUs/ordinances imply entitlement to Grant in perpetuity. | No explicit language guaranteeing perpetuity. | Leave to amend granted to plead specific resolutions/ordinances. |
| Whether FEHA claims were exhausted administratively | Single filing rule allows piggybacking on McConnell’s DFEH complaint. | Inda rule restrictions apply; may bar class exhaustion. | Exhaustion satisfied for all class members; FEHA claim reinstated on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (U.S. 2008) (adequacy of representation for nonparty bound by judgment)
- United States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 2011) (four-factor test for identity of claims; transactional nucleus important)
- Anderson v. Waddle, 474 F. Supp. 2d 1116 (E.D. Mo. 2007) (adequate representation depends on aligned interests and capacity to represent nonparties)
- Bean v. Crocker Nat’l Bank, 600 F.2d 754 (9th Cir. 1979) (single filing rule for exhaustion under Title VII/ADEA contexts)
- Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. 2003) (amendment where dismissal could be cured; res judicata limits)