Feied v. The Regents of the Univesity of California
Filed 7/24/06 Feied v. The Regents of the Univesity of California CA1/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| FREDERICK FEIED, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and Respondents. | A112481 (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG-05212623) |
I.
INTRODUCTION
This appeal represents the latest attempt by plaintiff Frederick Feied to seek retirement benefits from The Regents of the University of California (Regents), the University of California Retirement System (UCRS), and the California Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS), stemming from his employment at the University of California Berkeley (UC) and California State University, San Jose (CSU).
We previously affirmed an order dismissing plaintiff's breach of contract action against Regents and PERS, on the grounds that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations (Feied v. Regents of the University of California et al. (Mar. 2, 2004, A102968) [nonpub. opn.] [Feied I]). Following our decision in Feied I, plaintiff recast his claims as a civil rights action and filed a complaint in federal district court (Feied v. The Regents of the University of California et al. (N.D. Cal. 2004 No. C 04-02618 SBA) [Feied II]). The federal court concluded that plaintiff's action was time-barred, as well as precluded by the Eleventh Amendment. Undaunted by this dismissal, plaintiff restyled his claims as a negligence action and filed yet another complaint in state court (Feied v. The Regents of the University of California et al. (Alameda County Super. Ct. (2005) No. RG05212623) [Feied III]). The instant challenge comes to us from the judgment dismissing Feied III, following the sustaining of demurrers without leave to amend. We affirm.
II.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND[1]
Plaintiff worked for UC from 1965 to 1969 and from 1976 to 1978. He worked for CSU from 1970 through 1975. Based on this employment history, plaintiff seeks retirement benefits from PERS (for employment at CSU) and Regents and UCRS (for employment at UC).
In the â€
