Page 1
Ousted Judge Loses Bid in C.A. to Get Boost in Pension
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A former Superior Court judge who was ejected from office by the Commission on Judicial Performance based on persistent rudeness yesterday lost his appeal from a summary judgment in favor of then-state Controller Betty Yee and others in litigation aimed at boosting judicial pensions, with the opinion disparaging the former jurist’s skill as a lawyer.
Presiding Justice James Richman of the First District’s Div. One authored the unpublished opinion rejecting contentions by Bruce Van Voorhis, who served as a Contra Costa Superior Court judge from 1998 until his removal in 2003, and before that, as a Municipal Court judge for 11 years.
On Jan. 8, 2019, he brought his lawsuit, contending that amounts owed to him, as established by litigation brought in 2014 by then-Court of Appeal Presiding Justice Robert Mallano of this district’s Div. One (now retired) are being miscalculated.
Mallano’s Action
Mallano named as defendants then-state Controller John Chiang, the Judges’ Retirement System (“JRS”), and the Judges’ Retirement System II (“JRS II”). He alleged that judicial salaries—upon which pension amounts are based—had not been automatically increased over the years, as required by Government Code §68203.
Mallano’s position prevailed in the Los Angeles Superior Court and, in two unpublished opinions, in the Court of Appeal for this district.
Representing himself, Van Voorhis sued Yee, JRS, and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees Retirement System of California (“CalPERS”), asserting that the state Department of Human Resources (“CalHR”)—which he did not name as a defendant—is incorrectly calculating payments. Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Edward Weil—whom Richland termed “a most experienced superior court judge”—rejected Van Voorhis’s arguments, as did the Court of Appeal.
Richman’s Opinion
Richman wrote:
“Van Voorhis asserts that CalHR’s ‘calculation charts are erroneous and the math is erroneous under the formula and the database,’ and argued that Judge Weil should have issued an interpretation of the phrase ‘average percentage salary increase,’ despite that Van Voorhis did not sue CalHR. As Van Voorhis put it below, it was not required ‘that plaintiff must sue (CalHR) to compel CalHR to issue new and/or corrected pay letters.’ Or as he puts it here, ‘Appellant does not have to hunt, summon, or accuse...CalHR.” In short, he requested the trial court to issue an advisory opinion. To no avail.”
He went on to say:
“Van Voorhis argued below that if Justice Mallano could proceed against the Controller, JRS, and JRS II without the participation of CalHR, he too should have been able to obtain a declaration of the term “average percentage salary increase” without the presence of CalHR. But, as Judge Weil observed, Van Voorhis’s claims are different than Mallano’s: Mallano did not challenge CalHR’s calculations, but treated them as presumptively correct; by contrast, Van Voorhis alleges that CalHR has been miscalculating the ‘average percentage salary increase’ under section 68203.”
Legal Prowess Questioned
The justice ridiculed Van Voorhis at various points, such as pointing out that his “evidence” in the trial court “consists mostly of Van Voorhis’s 67-page supplemental declaration, a ‘declaration’ that was for the most part a mix of argument, opinion, and speculation, which is most inappropriate.”
He wrote:
“Van Voorhis has filed a 79-page, 17,666-word Appellant’s Opening Brief. The brief begins with a six-page ‘Table of Contents’ that lists 31 items, a few of which might liberally be called arguments. However, there is no ‘argument’ section per se, which is hardly good appellate advocacy.”
Richman went on to say:
“[I]t is difficult to discern precisely what, if any, arguments Van Voorhis makes. But one thing his brief does assert is this: ‘Please decide if the Van Voorhis dismissal was erroneous.’ That we will do, but against the background that Van Voorhis must do more than ask nicely. He must demonstrate error, as held by many principles of appellate review, principles ignored by Van Voorhis. The most fundamental principle is that a judgment is presumed to be correct.”
He pointed to various deficiencies in the brief.
The Los Angeles Superior Court, Richman noted, retained jurisdiction to make sure the judgment was being carried out, has monitored compliance, and not found any present deviation from what is required.
The case is Van Voorhis v. Yee, A161350.
Removal From Office
The order ousting Voorhis from office says:
“The commission has…found that Judge Van Voorhis does not appreciate the inappropriateness of his misconduct and that there is a strong likelihood that if he is allowed to remain on the bench he will commit future violations of the California Code of Judicial Ethics. These conclusions are compelled by Judge Van Voorhis’s frank admission that the longer he is on the bench the more difficult it is for him not to lose his temper, and by his failure to recognize that his subjective good intent does not allow him to abuse his authority, become embroiled in matters or lash out at employees or attorneys.”
It declares:
“[T]he commission cannot, consistent with its mandate to protect the public, enforce rigorous standards of judicial conduct, and maintain public confidence in the judiciary, allow Judge Van Voorhis to continue on the bench.”
Copyright 2023, Metropolitan News Company