A retired research attorney is embroiled in a decade-long legal battle over pension calculations. The complaint, filed by James B. Morell in the Los Angeles County Superior Court on July 10, 2024, targets the Board of Retirement of the Orange County Employees’ Retirement System (OCERS).
James B. Morell contends that OCERS incorrectly excluded a $3,500 Optional Benefit Program (OBP) payment from his pension calculation when he retired in 2014. According to Morell, this exclusion violates the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937 (CERL). The OBP allowed attorneys to allocate the $3,500 benefit towards taxable cash or healthcare reimbursement accounts. Morell consistently allocated portions of this benefit between these options during his tenure. In 2022, OCERS denied Morell’s appeal, citing Orange County Resolution 90-1551 which mandated the exclusion of OBP payments from "compensation." This resolution was based on the now-repealed Government Code section 31460.1.
The trial court initially sided with Morell, ruling that OCERS could not rely on Resolution 90-1551 as it had been invalidated by subsequent legislative changes. However, OCERS appealed this decision, arguing that including OBP payments would constitute "pension-spiking," which is prohibited under the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act of 2018. They also claimed that Resolution 90-1551 remained valid despite the repeal of section 31460.1 and referenced a 2002 settlement agreement which stipulated that OBP payments should not be included in pension calculations.
In March 2023, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Resolution 90-1551 remains valid and enforceable even after the repeal of section 31460.1. The court directed that Morell’s petition be denied and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.
Morell seeks a recalculation of his retirement allowance to include all cash OBP payments as part of his "compensation earnable" and "final compensation." He argues that CERL mandates their inclusion and that OCERS' reliance on outdated resolutions is unlawful.
Representing himself in propria persona, James B. Morell has been fighting for what he believes is rightfully owed to him under state law. On the other side, Reed Smith attorneys Maytak Chin, Mariah K. Fairley, and Kathryn M. Bayes represent OCERS in this protracted legal dispute.
The case has seen multiple rulings and appeals involving judges like Mary H. Strobel from Los Angeles County Superior Court and appellate judges Chaney, Rothschild, and Weingart under Case ID B331080.