You know it's an opinion by Justice Bedsworth when it (1) comes out of the 4/3, (2) contains footnotes, and -- most tellingly -- (3) describes the Greek mythological story that "Cassandra’s punishment for refusing to have sex with
Apollo was a 'gift' of accurate prophecy accompanied by the curse of having no one
listen to her." Yeah. That's Bedsworth.
Today's opinion is also worth reading on the merits. It's about the money that judges get -- or don't get -- for supplemental "cafeteria" benefits. Some Superior Court judges -- e.g., those in Los Angeles -- get a fair chunk of change (i.e., $57,000). Other Superior Court judges -- e.g., those in Alpine and Inyo -- get nothing. It's up to the County.
Someone brought a lawsuit about that, and won. The Court of Appeal held that this practice violated the Legislature's exclusive obligation to decide how much judges get paid.
At which point the Legislature passed what the Court of Appeal described as an "interim" measure that said that "judges of a court whose judges received
supplemental judicial benefits provided by the county or court, or both, as of July 1, 2008, shall continue to receive supplemental benefits from the county or court then
paying the benefits on the same terms and conditions as were in effect on that date." Which purportedly solved the problem, because now the Legislature had itself said how much judges should be paid; i.e., the exact same amount they had previously been paid.
But this gave rise to another problem: What about judges who started getting benefits after July 1, 2008; i.e., new judges? Aren't they still getting paid an illegal amount because the Legislature hasn't itself set their supplemental benefit amounts?
Hence the new lawsuit. And new appeal.
But the trial court dismissed this lawsuit, and the Court of Appeal affirms. On an interesting basis.
Justice Bedsworth says: "Look closely at the words of subdivision (a), noting precisely how the Legislature defined
the set of judges who are to receive benefits: 'Judges of a court whose judges received
supplemental judicial benefits provided by the county or court, or both, as of July 1, 2008, shall continue to receive supplemental benefits from the county or court then
paying the benefits on the same terms and conditions as were in effect on that date.'" (Emphasis in original). See what he means? Grammar, my friends. It's the court that's covered. Not the judges themselves. So under this reading, every judge -- even those who started after 2008 -- get supplemental benefits set by the Legislature. The same that judges on that court got before.
Fascinating. That's not how I interpreted the thing when I first read it. But, yeah, he's right. As a matter of grammar, that's indeed what it says. And it solves the problem.
Nicely done.
Except for two things.
One, I'm confident that's not what the Legislature actually meant. If only because the next paragraph of the statute clearly and expressly contemplates that judges after 2008 might not be paid this amount. A provision that would be complete surplusage if the statute means what the Court of Appeal says it means. Justice Bedsworth does some fancy footwork here by saying that the first paragraph is still unambiguous, there's a (totally routine) severance provision, etc. Fair enough. But the reality is that we're totally making up a statute, I believe, that the Legislature totally didn't intend. Yeah, they said it. But that's not what they meant. Because their knowledge of grammar is much inferior to Justice Bedsworth's. And I'm not sure that making up a statute that the Legislature didn't intend is the right way to solve a problem. Even if that's indeed what the statute facially says. (As indeed it does here.)
Second, I wonder if Justice Bedsworth's solution resolves this dispute, but creates even more difficult ones down the road. Sure, we've "solved" the present constitutional problem by saying the everyone (even post-2008 judges) is entitled to get. But I bet that's not how the statute was actually interpreted and applied by the counties at the time. Which means the Court of Appeal's now likely bought itself yet another lawsuit; this time, by the post-2008 judges who didn't receive their supplemental benefits and now claim they're entitled to 'em. Enjoy that one. Since, yeah, they seem like they're entitled to win.
Plus, under the Court of Appeal's interpretation, aren't the 2008 benefit levels now set in stone? Justice Bedsworth rightly tells the Legislature to get on the stick and to solve the problem that the same level of judges are getting paid different amounts in different counties. But under today's Court of Appeal decision, the counties themselves can't solve this problem; e.g., Inyo isn't allowed to pay its judges the same as those in L.A. County because the statute sets the 2008 level of compensation as an unalterable amount (e.g., every county must "pay[] the benefits on the same terms and conditions as were in effect on that date). It also means that if L.A. County, or any other county, at all changed from 2008 to 2015 any of the terms and conditions of its cafeteria plan, for any judge, boom, there's yet another lawsuit. Since that's illegal too.
So, yeah, today's Court of Appeal decision solves a problem. A big one.
But I wonder if it really accomplishes its stated objective. Since the result of today's decision might be an even bigger -- and worse -- mess than that which preceded it.
