Skip to main content

Supreme Court of California

Reset A A Font size: Print

METRO. WATER DIST. OF S. CALIFORNIA v. SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY (CARGILL), S102371

The Public Employees' Retirement Law incorporates common law principles into its definition of a contracting agency employee, and requires contracting public agencies to enroll in the California Public Employees' Retirement System all common law employees except those excluded under a specific statutory or contractual provision.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 02/26/2004
  • Published 02/26/2004

Judges

  • WERDEGAR, J.

Court

  • Supreme Court of California

Counsel

  • For Appellant:
  •  Jeffrey Kightlinger, Herny Torres, Jr.;   Horvitz & Levy, Mitchell C. Tilner, Encino, Jon B. Eisenberg, Oakland;  Bergman, Wedner & Dacey, Bergman & Dacey, Gregory M. Bergman, Los Angeles, Daphne M. Anneet and Mark W. Waterman for Petitioner Metropolitan Water District of Southern California., Katten Muchin Zavis, Stuart M. Richter, Los Angeles, Patricia T. Craigie, Beverly Hills, Justin M. Goldstein, Los Angeles, Donna L. Dutcher, Beverly Hills;  Freedman & Stone and Marc D. Freedman for Petitioners CDI Corporation, Comforce Technical Services, Inc., H.L. Yoh Company, MD Technical Services Company, Peak Technical Services, Superior Technical Resources, Inc., Superior Staffing Services, Inc., Volt Information Sciences, Inc., Volt Management Corp. and Westaff (USA), Inc., Musick, Peeler & Garrett and Charles E. Slyngstad, Los Angeles, for County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Metropolitan Water District of Southern California., McMurchie, Weill, Lenahan, Lee, Slater & Pearse and David W. McMurchie, Sacramento, for California Special Districts Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Metropolitan Water District of Southern California., Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Elwood Lui, Philip E. Cook, Los Angeles;  Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Nowland C. Hong and Scott H. Campbell, Los Angeles, for County of Los Angeles as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Metropolitan Water District of Southern California., Myers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson, San Leandro, Arthur A. Hartinger, Mountin View, and Terry Roemer for 148 California Cities, Counties, Towns and Districts, California Association of Sanitary Agencies, State Water Contractors, California Special Districts Association and Association of California Water Agencies as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioner Metropolitan Water District of Southern California., Cochran-Bond Connon & Ben-Zvi, Cochran-Bond Law Offices, Walter Cochran-Bond;  Law Offices of William M. Samoska, Los Angeles, Samoska & Friedman, Judy A. Friedman and Richard N. Grey, Encino, for Real Parties in Interest Dewayne Cargill, Anvar Alfi, John Sims, Paul Broussard, Joseph Zadikany, Sun Son, Charlotte Manuel, Steven Minor and Lisa Nelson., Steptoe & Johnson, Edward Gregory, Sheri T. Cheung, Jason Levin, Los Angeles, and Bennett Cooper for Real Party in Interest California Public Employees' Retirement System.,  Rothner, Segall & Greenstone, Anthony R. Segall, Glenn Rothner and Julia Harumi Mass, Pasadena, for American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union, Local 1902, AFL-CIO as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest., Bendich, Stobaugh & Strong, David F. Stobaugh, Stephen K. Strong, Brian J. Waid;  Krakow & Kaplan, Rottman• Kaplan, Steven J. Kaplan, Los Angeles;  Kalisch, Cotugno & Rust, Lee Cotugno and Mark Kalisch, Beverly Hills, as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest., Carol R. Golubock and Patricia C. Howard for Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest., Davis, Cowell & Bowe, Richard G. McCracken and Andrew J. Kahn, San Francisco, for Union of American Physicians and Dentists as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest., Tosdal, Levine, Smith, Steiner & Wax and Thomas Tosdal, San Diego, for Center on Policy Initiatives as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest.

  • For Appellees:
  • No appearance for Respondent.
Copied to clipboard