Jacobs v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
13 Cal. App. 5th 17
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- Allison Jacobs and Dennis Mueller are former UC police officers who receive Duty Disability Income (DDI) under the University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP); Jacobs became DDI-effective before medical separation, Mueller began DDI around his separation date. Both requested retired identification cards and concealed-carry endorsements, which the Regents denied.\
- DDI: a UCRP benefit for members disabled in the course of duty that pays 50% of highest average compensation for safety members, may be received before separation, continues until recovery or election to retire, allows accrual of service credit, and is not labeled a "disability retirement."\
- Penal Code §§ 25455 and 16690 entitle "honorably retired" peace officers who have "accepted a service or disability retirement" to retired ID cards with a concealed-weapons endorsement. The central question is whether DDI recipients qualify as "honorably retired."\
- Plaintiffs (Jacobs, Mueller, and FUPOA) sought a writ of mandate (CCP § 1085) requiring the Regents to issue retired ID cards/endorsements or hold good-cause hearings. The trial court denied the petition; this appeal followed.\
- The Regents argued DDI is not a form of retirement under the UCRP and thus does not trigger Penal Code protections; the Regents had previously issued such cards to DDI recipients but discontinued that practice after legal review.\
- The trial court and this court concluded the UCRP contains no "disability retirement" category and DDI recipients are not retired for UCRP purposes, so no clear ministerial duty existed to issue retired IDs/endorsements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DDI recipients are "honorably retired" under Penal Code § 16690 | DDI is the "functional equivalent" of a disability retirement, so DDI recipients qualify as "honorably retired." | UCRP contains no disability retirement; Disabled (DDI) members are not Retired Members and may continue employment/receive benefits pre-separation, so they are not retired. | Held: DDI recipients are not retired under the UCRP; they are not "honorably retired" for § 16690 purposes. |
| Whether the Regents had a clear, present, ministerial duty under CCP § 1085 to issue retired ID cards/endorsements | Regents' prior practice of issuing cards to DDI recipients and statutory language supporting retired officers imply a ministerial duty. | No statutory or plan-based duty exists because UCRP does not create disability retirement; prior practice was erroneous and does not create a ministerial duty. | Held: No clear, present, ministerial duty; writ of mandate properly denied. |
| Whether statutory interpretation should read § 16690 broadly to include DDI | § 16690's undefined terms should be interpreted broadly to include equivalents like DDI. | Courts cannot rewrite statute; the Regents' UCRP defines retirement status and does not include DDI as retirement. | Held: Court declined to expand the statute by analogy; UCRP controls whether a member is retired. |
| Whether the Regents' long course of practice issuing cards binds it or creates entitlement | Longstanding issuance/renewals to DDI members shows an implied entitlement or ambiguity in UCRP. | Past erroneous practice does not override plan language; no contract claim was pleaded and UCRP unambiguously contains no disability retirement. | Held: Prior practice insufficient to establish a legal right warranting mandamus. |
Key Cases Cited
- Regents of the University of California v. City of Santa Monica, 77 Cal.App.3d 130 (recognizing Regents' plan rules can have force akin to statute)\
- San Francisco Labor Council v. Regents of University of California, 26 Cal.3d 785 (discussing the broad, largely autonomous powers of the Regents)\
- Gore v. Reisig, 213 Cal.App.4th 1487 (privacy of retired-officer endorsement: person must have retired from active service to be "honorably retired")\
- Bergeron v. Department of Health Services, 71 Cal.App.4th 17 (standards for writ of mandate under CCP § 1085 and requirement of clear, ministerial duty)\
- California School Employees Assn. v. Governing Bd. of South Orange County Community College Dist., 124 Cal.App.4th 574 (courts may not rewrite statutes or insert omitted provisions)