United States Ninth Circuit

Summary judgment in favor of defendant-count in an action brought by the plaintiff alleging that its retired employee members had an implied vested right to the pooling of their health care premiums with those of current employees is affirmed, where: 1) plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding its alleged implied contract right to the pooled premium, leaving its implied contract claim without factual or legal support; 2) a practice or policy extended over a period of time does not translate into an implied contract right without clear legislative intent to create that right, an intent that plaintiff had not demonstrated in this case; and 3) the nature of the plaintiff's evidence underscored the absence of any definitive intent or commitment on the part of the defendant-county to provide for the pooled premium.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/13/2014
• Published 02/13/2014

Judges

• McKEOWN

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel