242 Cal. App. 4th 1437
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2008 Harold Sturgeon sued Los Angeles County arguing county-paid supplemental benefits to superior court judges were "compensation" that only the Legislature may prescribe; the Court of Appeal agreed (Sturgeon I).
- The Legislature responded in 2009 by enacting Gov. Code § 68220 (part of SB X2 11), which preserved supplemental benefits in effect July 1, 2008, but included an opt-out notice process and a clause permitting counties to "elect" to provide benefits to all judges.
- Sturgeon challenged § 68220; Division One upheld the statute in Sturgeon II, finding safeguards (notice/reporting) sufficient and treating the statute as an interim measure.
- Years later Sturgeon sued Los Angeles County again (Sturgeon III), alleging § 68220 now permits counties to fix compensation for judges appointed after July 1, 2008, raising an article VI, § 19 delegation problem.
- The trial court sustained the county’s demurrer; the Court of Appeal (Div. Three) affirmed, construing § 68220(a) to require counties that paid benefits on July 1, 2008 to continue paying those same terms to all judges of that court (including judges appointed later), and severing the last sentence of § 68220(b) as unconstitutional surplusage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 68220 allows counties to fix compensation for judges appointed after July 1, 2008 | Sturgeon: § 68220(a) is a grandfather clause limited to judges who already received benefits on July 1, 2008; subdivision (b)’s last sentence lets counties elect to extend (and thus set) benefits for later judges, improperly delegating compensation to counties | County: § 68220 as a whole preserves the status quo; counties either pay the legislatively-prescribed benefits or may opt out per (b); no unlawful delegation because Legislature set terms | § 68220(a) is read to cover all judges of a court that had been providing benefits on July 1, 2008 (including later appointees); counties cannot set benefit levels. The final sentence of (b) is severed as unconstitutional surplusage. |
| Whether the opt-out/opt-in language in § 68220(b) renders the statute an unconstitutional delegation | Sturgeon: the opt-in language in (b) shows Legislature left substantive compensation decisions to counties, violating art. VI, § 19 | County: opt-out and notice/reporting requirements provide legislative safeguards; Legislature retained control | Court held only the opt-out notice in the first two sentences of (b) is operative; that preserves legislative prescription. The isolated opt-in clause is severed as unconstitutional. |
| Whether passage of time (new judges since 2008) changes constitutionality of § 68220 | Sturgeon: over time many judges appointed after July 1, 2008 would have compensation set by county practice, making the statute unconstitutional now | County: § 68220 fixed benefits by reference to the court’s July 1, 2008 benefits, so passage of time does not create new delegation | Court rejected the passage-of-time claim, holding § 68220(a) fixes benefits for the court and covers subsequent judges, so no illicit delegation occurs over time. |
| Proper remedy/interpretation when part of statute is unconstitutional | Sturgeon: sever problematic language to render statute constitutional; alternative readings could leave unconstitutional delegation | County: urge construction preserving as much of statute as possible | Court severed the last sentence of § 68220(b) and construed the remainder to preserve constitutionality. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 167 Cal.App.4th 630 (2008) (held county-paid supplemental benefits are judicial "compensation" that must be prescribed by the Legislature)
- Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles, 191 Cal.App.4th 344 (2010) (upheld § 68220 as interim measure with safeguards like notice and reporting)
- Sevier v. Riley, 198 Cal. 170 (1926) (historical principle that judicial compensation is a legislative function)
- Kugler v. Yocum, 69 Cal.2d 371 (1968) (upholding statutory means of prescribing pay by reference to other jurisdictions/employees)
- Martin v. County of Contra Costa, 8 Cal.App.3d 856 (1970) (approving tying of compensation to other employee classes)
- King v. Burwell, 135 S.Ct. 2480 (2015) (canon against surplusage is not absolute; statutes should be construed to avoid unconstitutionality)