Padres v. Housing Authority of San Bernadino County

Filed 1/12/07  Padres v. Housing Authority of San Bernadino County CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b).  This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

 IN THE COURT  OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.  Cynthia Ann Ludvigsen, Judge.  Affirmed.

Brunick, McElhaney & Beckett and Steven K. Beckett for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Arias & Lockwood, Joseph Arias and Christopher D. Lockwood for Defendant and Respondent.

In this action, Claudio Padres claimed that his former employer, the Housing Authority of the County of San Bernardino (the Authority), failed to pay him various items of salary and employee benefits to which he was entitled.  The parties have accepted the trial court's resolution with respect to all but one of the disputed items.  Hence, the only item at issue in this appeal is Padres's asserted entitlement to have the Authority make matching fund contributions to his 457 plan.

The trial court ruled that the Authority was required to make matching contributions from 1982 through 1987, but not from 1987 through 1998.  However, it also ruled that this claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

Padres challenges both of these rulings.  We will address the ruling that the Authority had no obligation to make matching contributions after 1987, because it is relevant to the issue of when the statute of limitations began to run.  Ultimately, however, we will uphold the ruling that this claim was barred by the statute of limitations.  Accordingly, we will affirm.

I

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Padres started working for the Authority in 1981, as director of leased housing.  By the time he retired, effective October 21, 1998, he was housing development manager.

The Authority provided its employees with a retirement plan through the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS).  It also provided a 457 plan (sometimes known as a deferred compensation plan).^[1]  A 457 plan allows an employee to postpone receiving part of his or her salary ‑ ‑ and hence to postpone paying taxes on it ‑ ‑ usually until retirement.  The Authority turned over the deferred portion of the employee's salary to an outside plan administrator, which invested it for the employee's benefit, then paid it out to the employee after he or she retired.

In 1982, the Authority's Board of Commissioners approved and adopted a new employee benefit program for certain managerial employees (the program).  The Authority gave all affected employees a written description of the program (the program document).^[2]  According to the program document, the Authority would pay a specified amount of money per month into the employee's choice of (1) the employee's CalPERS retirement account, or (2) the employee's 457 account ‑ ‑ but in that event, only as matching funds, i.e., only up to the amount the employee contributed him or herself.  In Padres's case, the amount specified was $150 a month.

Padres admitted receiving the 1982 program document.  He testified, however, that as he understood it, it stated that the Authority would both pay him the specified amount per month and make a matching contribution to his 457 account.  He added, â€