Peck v. City of Hawthorne CA2/7

Filed 2/26/13 Peck v. City of Hawthorne CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

HOLLY PECK et al., B236442

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC444994) v.

THE CITY OF HAWTHORNE,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mel Red Recana, Judge. Affirmed. Abrolat Law, Nancy L. Abrolat and Edward E. Kim for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Liebert Cassidy Whitmore, Jeffrey C. Freedman and Kevin W. Chiang for Defendant and Respondent.

____________________

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Holly Peck, Daniel Mills and Kathy Burnett, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, appeal from a judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant The City of Hawthorne entered after the trial court sustained defendant‟s demurrer without leave to amend. The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground the Public Employees Medical Care and Hospitalization Act (PEMCHA, Gov. Code, § 22751 et seq.) provided no private right of action. We affirm.

FACTS

Plaintiffs were employed by defendant. As public employees, they were entitled to enroll in health insurance plans through the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Under PEMCHA, the amount plaintiffs were to pay for the health insurance plans was the total cost of coverage less the amount paid by defendant as their employer. That amount was specified by statute. Defendant failed to make the required payments toward the cost of plaintiffs‟ health insurance coverage. Instead, it deducted the entire cost from plaintiffs‟ paychecks, without their consent.