STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT KENT,...

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURTKENT, SC.-------------------------------------------------------JOSEPH CLIFFORD, EDWARD :BALFOUR, WILLIAM BERUBE, :WILLIAM BLAIR, ANNMARIE :BOLVIN, DENISE BOULE, MARIANN : COMPLAINTCALLAHAN, JOSEPH CAPALBO, :JANE CARLSON-PICKERING, : Civil Action Number:CATHERINE CELEBERTO, MICHAEL:CLIFFORD, KATHLEEN : JURY TRIAL DEMANDEDCRESCENZO, MONIKA CURNETT, :SANDRA CURRAN, PAMELA :DELVECCHIO, MARILYN :DISTEFANO, BINYAMIN EFREOM, :JOANNE FONSECA, MARY :GARDINER, PATRICIA :GIAMMARCO, KATHLEEN GIRARD, :MARGUERITE GIROUX, MARY :HOWARD, PATRICIA KELLEY, :NANCY LEMME, ELIZABETH :MARCELLO, GREGORY MARCELLO,:KATHLEEN MARSHALL, JOANNE :MATISEWSKI, CAROL MAYHEW, :LUCILLE MOTA-COSTA, FRANCIS :MULLINS, TIMOTHY MURPHY, :JOHN O’BRIEN, PIERRETTE :O’BRIEN, WILLIAM O’CONNOR, :BARBARA OBERLE, JOHN OBERLE, :LEO JUDE PAQUETTE, SANDRA :PAQUETTE, SUSAN REMINGTON, :ANTHONY RICCI, JANE ROCHE, :TERESA ROMANO, CYNTHIA :RONDEAU, MICHAEL SENERCHIA, :SUSAN SWEET, CHERYL VINCENT, :C JUDITH WALLACE and :KATHLEEN WINTER, :

:Plaintiffs, :

:v. :

:LINCOLN CHAFEE, in his capacity as :Governor of the State of Rhode Island, :GINA RAIMONDO, in her capacity as :General Treasurer of the State of Rhode :

2

Island, and the EMPLOYEES’ :RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF RHODE :ISLAND, by and through the RHODE :ISLAND RETIREMENT BOARD, by :and through GINA RAIMONDO, in her :capacity as Chairperson of the :Retirement Board, and FRANK :KARPINSKI, in his capacity as :Executive Director and Secretary of :the Retirement Board, :

:Defendants. :

-------------------------------------------------------

As and for their Complaint, the above-captioned Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”),

by and through their attorneys, O’Leary Law Associates, allege as follows:

PARTIES

1. All of the Plaintiffs worked as public employees in the State of Rhode Island.

2. All of the Plaintiffs, upon information and belief, retired from their respective

public employment in the State of Rhode Island prior to the enactment of the Rhode Island

Retirement Security Act of 2011 (“RIRSA”) in or about November 2011.

3. None of the Plaintiffs is a party to the action which is pending in this Court and is

entitled Rhode Island Public Employee Retirees’ Coalition, et al. v. Lincoln D. Chafee, et al .,

C.A. No. PC 12-3166 (the “RIPERC Suit”).

4. None of the Plaintiffs, upon information and belief, is a member of any entity,

organization and/or coalition which is a party to the RIPERC Suit.

5. The Plaintiff, Joseph Clifford, is a retired public-school teacher.

6. Joseph Clifford is a current beneficiary of the Employees Retirement System of

Rhode Island (the “ERSRI”).

3

7. Joseph Clifford resides in Jamestown, Rhode Island.

8. The Plaintiff, Edward Balfour (“Mr. Balfour”), is a retired State employee.

9. Mr. Balfour is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

10. Mr. Balfour resides in Foster, Rhode Island.

11. The Plaintiff, William Berube (“Mr. Berube”), is a retired State employee.

12. Mr. Berube is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

13. Mr. Berube resides in Warwick, Rhode Island.

14. The Plaintiff, William Blair (“Mr. Blair”), is a retired State employee.

15. Mr. Blair is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

16. Mr. Blair resides in Bridgewater, Vermont.

17. The Plaintiff, Annmarie Bolvin (“Ms. Bolvin”), is a retired State employee.

18. Ms. Bolvin is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

19. Ms. Bolvin resides in Providence, Rhode Island.

20. The Plaintiff, Denise Boule (“Ms. Boule”), is a retired public-school teacher.

21. Ms. Boule is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

22. Ms. Boule resides in Cranston, Rhode Island.

23. The Plaintiff, Mariann Callahan (“Ms. Callahan”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

24. Ms. Callahan is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

25. Ms. Callahan resides in North Kingstown, Rhode Island.

26. The Plaintiff, Joseph Capalbo (“Mr. Capalbo”), is a retired public-school teacher.

27. Mr. Capalbo is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

28. Mr. Capalbo resides in Hopkinton, Rhode Island.

4

29. The Plaintiff, Jane Carlson-Pickering (“Ms. Carlson-Pickering”), is a retired

public-school teacher.

30. Ms. Carlson-Pickering is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

31. Ms. Carlson-Pickering resides in South Kingstown, Rhode Island.

32. The Plaintiff, Catherine Celeberto (“Ms. Celeberto”), is a retired State employee.

33. Ms. Celeberto is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

34. Ms. Celeberto resides in Naples, Florida.

35. The Plaintiff, Michael Clifford, is a retired public-school teacher.

36. Michael Clifford is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

37. Michael Clifford resides in North Smithfield, Rhode Island.

38. The Plaintiff, Kathleen Crescenzo (“Ms. Crescenzo”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

39. Ms. Crescenzo is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

40. Ms. Crescenzo resides in South Kingstown, Rhode Island.

41. The Plaintiff, Monika Curnett (“Ms. Curnett”), is a retired public-school teacher.

42. Ms. Curnett is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

43. Ms. Curnett resides in Cranston, Rhode Island.

44. The Plaintiff, Sandra Curran (“Ms. Curran”), is a retired public-school teacher.

45. Ms. Curran is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

46. Ms. Curran resides in North Kingstown, Rhode Island.

47. The Plaintiff, Pamela Delvecchio (“Ms. Delvecchio”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

48. Ms. Delvecchio is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

5

49. Ms. Delvecchio resides in Cranston, Rhode Island.

50. The Plaintiff, Marilyn DiStefano (“Ms. DiStefano”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

51. Ms. DiStefano is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

52. Ms. DiStefano resides in Warwick, Rhode Island.

53. The Plaintiff, Binyamin Efreom (“Mr. Efreom”), is a retired State employee.

54. Mr. Efreom is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

55. Mr. Efreom resides in Warwick, Rhode Island.

56. The Plaintiff, Joanne Fonseca (“Ms. Fonseca”), is a retired public-school teacher.

57. Ms. Fonseca is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

58. Ms. Fonseca resides in Cranston, Rhode Island.

59. The Plaintiff, Mary Gardiner (“Ms. Gardiner”), is a retired public-school teacher.

60. Ms. Gardiner is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

61. Ms. Gardiner resides in North Kingstown, Rhode Island.

62. The Plaintiff, Patricia Giammarco (“Ms. Giammarco”), is a retired State

employee.

63. Ms. Giammarco is a current beneficiary of ERSRI.

64. Ms. Giammarco resides in North Providence, Rhode Island.

65. The Plaintiff, Kathleen Girard (“Ms. Girard”), is a retired public-school teacher.

66. Ms. Girard is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

67. Ms. Girard resides in Charlestown, Rhode Island.

68. The Plaintiff, Marguerite Giroux (“Ms. Giroux”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

6

69. Ms. Giroux is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

70. Ms. Giroux resides in North Kingstown, Rhode Island.

71. The Plaintiff, Mary Howard (“Ms. Howard”), is a retired public-school teacher.

72. Ms. Howard is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

73. Ms. Howard resides in South Kingstown, Rhode Island.

74. The Plaintiff, Patricia Kelley (“Ms. Kelley”), is a retired public-school teacher.

75. Ms. Kelley is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

76. Ms. Kelley resides in East Greenwich, Rhode Island.

77. The Plaintiff, Nancy Lemme (“Ms. Lemme”), is a retired public-school teacher.

78. Ms. Lemme is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

79. Ms. Lemme resides in Richmond, Rhode Island.

80. The Plaintiff, Elizabeth Marcello (“Ms. Marcello”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

81. Ms. Marcello is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

82. Ms. Marcello resides in East Greenwich, Rhode Island.

83. The Plaintiff, Gregory Marcello (“Mr. Marcello”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

84. Mr. Marcello is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

85. Mr. Marcello resides in East Greenwich, Rhode Island.

86. The Plaintiff, Kathleen Marshall (“Ms. Marshall”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

87. Ms. Marshall is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

88. Ms. Marshall resides in Burrillville, Rhode Island.

7

89. The Plaintiff, Joanne Matisewski (“Ms. Matisewski”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

90. Ms. Matisewski is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

91. Ms. Matisewski resides in Cranston, Rhode Island.

92. The Plaintiff, Carol Mayhew (“Ms. Mayhew”), is a retired public-school teacher.

93. Ms. Mayhew is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

94. Ms. Mayhew resides in Narragansett, Rhode Island.

95. The Plaintiff, Lucille Mota-Costa (“Ms. Mota-Costa”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

96. Ms. Mota-Costa is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

97. Ms. Mota-Costa resides in Warwick, Rhode Island.

98. The Plaintiff, Francis Mullins (“Mr. Mullins”), is a retired public-school teacher.

99. Mr. Mullins is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

100. Mr. Mullins resides in East Greenwich, Rhode Island.

101. The Plaintiff, Timothy Murphy (“Mr. Murphy”), is a retired State employee.

102. Mr. Murphy is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

103. Mr. Murphy resides in Cranston, Rhode Island.

104. The Plaintiff, John O’Brien (“Mr. O’Brien”), is a retired State employee.

105. Mr. O’Brien is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

106. Mr. O’Brien resides in Fort Myers, Florida.

107. The Plaintiff, Pierrette O’Brien (“Ms. O’Brien”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

108. Ms. O’Brien is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

8

109. Ms. O’Brien resides in Fort Myers, Florida.

110. The Plaintiff, William O’Connor (“Mr. O’Connor”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

111. Mr. O’Connor is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

112. Mr. O’Connor resides in Warwick, Rhode Island.

113. The Plaintiff, Barbara Oberle (“Ms. Oberle”), is a retired public-school teacher.

114. Ms. Oberle is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

115. Ms. Oberle resides in South Kingstown, Rhode Island.

116. The Plaintiff, John Oberle (“Mr. Oberle”), is a retired public-school teacher.

117. Mr. Oberle is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

118. Mr. Oberle resides in South Kingstown, Rhode Island.

119. The Plaintiff, Leo Jude Paquette (“Mr. Paquette”), is a retired State employee.

120. Mr. Paquette is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

121. Mr. Paquette resides in Narragansett, Rhode Island.

122. The Plaintiff, Sandra Paquette (“Ms. Paquette”), is a retired public-school teacher.

123. Ms. Paquette is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

124. Ms. Paquette resides in Narragansett, Rhode Island.

125. The Plaintiff, Susan Remington (“Ms. Remington”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

126. Ms. Remington is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

127. Ms. Remington resides in Burrillville, Rhode Island.

128. The Plaintiff, Anthony Ricci (“Mr. Ricci”), is a retired public-school teacher.

129. Mr. Ricci is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

9

130. Mr. Ricci resides in North Providence, Rhode Island.

131. The Plaintiff, Jane Roche (“Ms. Roche”), is a retired public-school teacher.

132. Ms. Roche is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

133. Ms. Roche resides in Jamestown, Rhode Island.

134. The Plaintiff, Teresa Romano (“Ms. Romano”), is a retired public-school teacher.

135. Ms. Romano is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

136. Ms. Romano resides in Warwick, Rhode Island.

137. The Plaintiff, Cynthia Rondeau (“Ms. Rondeau”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

138. Ms. Rondeau is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

139. Ms. Rondeau resides in North Smithfield, Rhode Island.

140. The Plaintiff, Michael Senerchia (“Mr. Senerchia”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

141. Mr. Senerchia is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

142. Mr. Senerchia resides in West Warwick, Rhode Island.

143. The Plaintiff, Susan Sweet (“Ms. Sweet”), is a retired State employee.

144. Ms. Sweet is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

145. Ms. Sweet resides in East Providence, Rhode Island.

146. The Plaintiff, Cheryl Vincent (“Ms. Vincent”), is a retired State employee.

147. Ms. Vincent is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

148. Ms. Vincent resides in Cranston, Rhode Island.

149. The Plaintiff, C Judith Wallace (“Ms. Wallace”), is a retired public-school

teacher.

10

150. Ms. Wallace is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

151. Ms. Wallace resides in Warwick, Rhode Island.

152. The Plaintiff, Kathleen Winter (“Ms. Winter”), is a retired public-school teacher.

153. Ms. Winter is a current beneficiary of the ERSRI.

154. Ms. Winter resides in North Venice, Florida.

155. The Defendant, Lincoln Chafee, is Governor of the State of Rhode Island

(“Governor Chafee”).

156. This action names, and is brought against, Governor Chafee in his official

capacity only.

157. The Defendant, Gina Raimondo, is General Treasurer of the State of Rhode Island

(“General Treasurer Raimondo”).

158. This action names, and is brought against General Treasurer Raimondo in her

official capacity(ies) only.

159. The Defendant, the ERSRI, has been (a) established and placed under the

management of the Rhode Island Retirement Board (the “Retirement Board”), and (b) the

Retirement Board has been vested with the general administration and the responsibility for the

proper operation of the ERSRI. The ERSRI and the Retirement Board are hereinafter

collectively referred to as the “ERSRI”.

160. The ERSRI is sued through its chairperson, General Treasurer Raimondo, and its

executive director, Frank Karpinski (“Executive Director Karpinski”), who is charged with the

administration of the ERSRI.

161. All of the Defendants are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “State”.

11

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

162. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action pursuant to Sections 8-2-14 and

9-30-1 of the Rhode Island General Laws, as the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of

$10,000, and this action prays for remedies at law and in equity, as well as entry of declaratory

judgment.

163. All of the parties to this action possess sufficient minimum contacts with the State

of Rhode Island to render each and every party subject to the jurisdiction of this Court.

164. Venue is proper in this Court based on the respective residences of the parties to

this action, pursuant to Section 9-4-3 of the Rhode Island General Laws.

165. Pursuant to Section 9-30-11 of the Rhode Island General Laws and Superior

Court Rule 24(d) of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs have furnished the Attorney General of the

State of Rhode Island with a copy of this Complaint.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

ERSRI

166. The Rhode Island General Assembly created the ERSRI.

167. The ERSRI is a mandatory pension plan.

168. The ERSRI is a contributory pension plan.

169. The ERSRI is a defined-benefit pension plan.

170. The Retirement Board manages ERSRI.

171. General Treasurer Raimondo is the ex-officio chairperson of the Retirement

Board.

172. General Treasurer Raimondo is the treasurer of the Retirement Board.

12

173. General Treasurer Raimondo bears responsibility for and controls payment of the

Plaintiffs’ retirement benefits administered through the ERSRI.

174. General Treasurer Raimondo serves as custodian of the Plaintiffs’ retirement

benefits administered through the ERSRI.

175. Executive Director Karpinski is the secretary of the Retirement Board.

176. Executive Director Karpinski is in charge of the administration of the ERSRI.

177. The members of the Retirement Board shall discharge duties with respect to the

ERSRI:

(a) solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries, including the

Plaintiffs;

(b) for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and

beneficiaries, including the Plaintiffs, and paying reasonable expenses of

administering the system;

(c) with the care, skill and caution under the circumstances then prevailing

which a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiar with those

matters would use in the conduct of an activity of like character and

purpose;

(d) impartially, taking into account any differing interests of participants and

beneficiaries, including the Plaintiffs; and

(e) in accordance with a good-faith interpretation of the law governing the

retirement system.

178. The members of the Retirement Board have a fiduciary duty(ies) to the Plaintiffs,

as beneficiaries of the ERSRI.

13

179. The Retirement Board has a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiffs, as beneficiaries of the

ERSRI.

180. Upon information and belief, the ERSRI, prior to July 1, 2012, required all State-

employee Plaintiffs to contribute 8.75% of their annual compensation to the ERSRI.

181. Upon information and belief, the ERSRI, prior to July 1, 2012, required all

public-school-teacher Plaintiffs to contribute 9.5% of their annual compensation to the ERSRI.

182. In consideration of the Plaintiffs’ respective contribution(s) to the ERSRI, each

Plaintiff was and is entitled to payment of a fixed retirement allowance (the “Allowance”) upon

the Plaintiff’s reaching statutorily-prescribed age and/or service requirements.

183. Upon information and belief, the State was required to and did promise all of the

Plaintiffs, upon retirement, a three-percent compounded cost-of-living retirement adjustment (the

“COLA” or “COLAs”) with respect to and/or as part of the Allowance for the duration of the

Plaintiffs’ respective lives.

184. Upon information and belief, the State’s provision, and the Plaintiffs’ obtainment,

of the COLAs was a direct result of the Plaintiffs’ agreement to forego other benefits and/or

substantial compensation.

185. The inclusion of the COLAs in and/or with respect to the Plaintiffs’ respective

Allowances comprised a substantial portion of the respective Plaintiffs’ employment agreements

with the State.

186. The Plaintiffs undertook and/or forewent several and substantial acts, omissions

and decisions (including, without limitation, the decision to retire) in reliance on the terms and

conditions of the Plaintiffs’ respective employment agreements, which agreements entitled the

14

Plaintiffs to receive the Allowances, including annual COLAs, for the duration of the Plaintiffs’

respective lives.

187. The State did not, upon or at any time prior to the Plaintiffs’ retirement, represent

to the Plaintiffs that their respective Allowances and/or COLAs could or would ever be reduced,

suspended or eliminated during the balance of the Plaintiffs’ lives.

RIRSA

188. On or about November 18, 2011, RIRSA was enacted.

189. RIRSA suspended the Plaintiffs’ receipt of the COLAs.

190. Pursuant to RIRSA, the Plaintiffs shall not receive the annual COLAs, which the

State was required to and did promise to the Plaintiffs upon the Plaintiffs’ respective

retirement(s), unless and until the ERSRI reaches eighty-percent funding.

191. The suspension of the Plaintiffs’ receipt of the COLAs, pursuant to RIRSA, has

substantially diminished, and continues to substantially diminish, the amount of the Plaintiffs’

respective Allowances.

192. RIRSA does not permit full restoration of the Plaintiffs’ respective COLAs in the

amounts and/or with the frequency which the State was required to and did promise to the

Plaintiffs upon the Plaintiffs’ respective retirement(s).

193. RIRSA provides that, unless and until the ERSRI reaches eighty-percent funding,

the Plaintiffs shall receive a COLA only once every five years.

194. RIRSA provides that, in the event that the ERSRI reaches eighty-percent funding,

the non-compounded COLAs provided to the Plaintiffs shall range between zero and four

percent.

15

195. Upon information and belief, irrespective of the ERSRI’s reaching eighty-percent

funding, the non-compounded COLAs provided to the Plaintiffs, pursuant to RIRSA, will not, in

any event, reach three percent.

196. Pursuant to RIRSA, in the event that the ERSRI reaches eighty-percent funding,

the non-compounded COLA will apply only to the first $25,000 of the Plaintiffs’ respective

Allowances.

RIPERC Suit

197. Some and/or all of the Plaintiffs, upon information and belief, became aware of a

proposed settlement agreement in the RIPERC Suit on, about or after February 14, 2014 (the

“Proposed Settlement”).

198. According to the Proposed Settlement, upon satisfaction of certain conditions, the

Plaintiffs would be mandated to become members of one of five separate classes, to wit, “Class

(v),” in a class-action lawsuit (the “Class-Action Suit”).

199. According to the Proposed Settlement, Class (v) in the Class-Action Suit shall be

comprised of all retirees, regardless of the date(s) of retirement, who are eligible to receive a

retirement benefit from the ERSRI.

200. According to the Proposed Settlement, Class (v) purports to include individuals in

the Class-Action Suit who have had no representation or involvement in the RIPERC Suit prior

to the prospective class certification.

201. Upon class certification, the Proposed Settlement purports to bind members of all

classes, including Class (v), from pursuing their own claim(s) or individual interests.

16

202. Upon information and belief, the RIPERC Plaintiffs have not filed any motion(s)

to amend the complaint(s) and/or certify any class(es) with respect to the RIPERC Suit.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINSTTHE DEFENDANTS

(Breach of Contract)

203. The Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs “1” through “202” of this Complaint with the same force and effect as if fully set

forth herein at length.

204. Each of the Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the State with respect to the

State’s provision of a mandatory, contributory and defined-benefit pension plan and/or benefits,

including, without limitation, the Allowance and COLA, to each of the Plaintiffs, in exchange for

Plaintiffs’ respective performance of certain duties as public-school teachers and/or employees

of the State (the “Agreement”).

205. The State breached the terms and conditions of the Agreement, including, without

limitation, those terms and conditions requiring the provision of a mandatory, contributory and

defined-benefit pension plan and/or benefits, including the Allowance and COLA, to each of the

Plaintiffs.

206. The Plaintiffs have sustained and continue to sustain substantial damages, as well

as costs, expenses and attorney’s fees, as a proximate result of the foregoing breach(es) of the

State of the Agreement(s).

207. Save injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs will continue to sustain substantial damages

as a proximate result of the ongoing breach(es) of the Agreement(s) by the State.

17

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINSTTHE DEFENDANTS

(Promissory Estoppel)




209. The State made clear and unambiguous promises to the Plaintiffs, with respect to,

without limitation, the State’s provision of a mandatory, contributory and defined-benefit

pension plan and/or benefits, including the Allowance and COLA, to each of the Plaintiffs (the

“Promises”).

210. The Promises should have been reasonably expected to induce action or

forbearance by the Plaintiffs.

211. The Plaintiffs reasonably and justifiably relied on the Promises in acting,

refraining and/or failing to act based on the Promises.

212. The Plaintiffs have sustained and continue to sustain substantial detriment and

damages, as well as costs, expenses and attorney’s fees, as a proximate result of the Plaintiffs’

reasonable and justifiable reliance on the Promises.

213. Enforcement of the Promises is the sole means of avoiding injustice to the

Plaintiffs.

214. Save injunctive relief, the Plaintiffs will continue to sustain substantial detriment

and damages as a proximate result of the Plaintiffs’ reasonable and justifiable reliance on the

Promises.

18

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINSTTHE DEFENDANTS

(Violation of Article 1, Section 12 of the Rhode Island Constitution)

Contract Clause




216. The Rhode Island Constitution, Article 1, Section 12 (the “Contract Clause”)

provides:

“In order effectually to secure the religious and political freedomestablished by our venerated ancestors, and to preserve the same for our posterity,we do declare that the essential and unquestionable rights and principleshereinafter mentioned shall be established, maintained, and preserved, and shallbe of paramount obligation in all legislative, judicial and executive proceedings.

“. . . .

“Ex post facto laws – Laws impairing obligation of contract. – No expost facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, shall be passed.”

217. Each of the retired Plaintiffs has a fully-vested interest in the State’s provision to

each of the Plaintiffs of a mandatory, contributory and defined-benefit pension plan and/or

benefits, including, without limitation, the Allowance and COLA (the “Benefits”).

218. The Plaintiffs have a contractual right to receive the vested Benefits in existence

at the time of their respective retirements.

219. The Plaintiffs have a constitutional right to receive the vested Benefits in

existence at the time of their respective retirements.

19

220. The Plaintiffs’ contractual and/or constitutional right(s) to receive the vested

Benefits in existence at the time of their respective retirements cannot be retroactively decreased

or altered by the State.

221. RIRSA has substantially reduced and diminished, and will continue to reduce and

diminish substantially, the Plaintiffs’ Benefits by indefinitely suspending the contractually-

promised Benefits, including, without limitation, the COLA.

222. No legitimate public purpose exists for the State to impair the Plaintiffs’

contractually-promised Benefits, including, without limitation, the COLA.

223. The State’s purported means to meet the putative public purpose are neither

reasonable nor necessary to meet said purpose.

224. The foregoing acts of the State violate the Contract Clause.

225. Save injunctive relief, the State’s violation of the Contract Clause, and substantial

resultant damage to the Plaintiffs, will continue.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINSTTHE DEFENDANTS


Takings Clause




227. The Rhode Island Constitution, Article 1, Section 16 (the “Takings Clause”)

provides:

20


“. . . .

“Section 16. Compensation for taking of private property for publicuse -- . . . Private property shall not be taken for public uses, without justcompensation. . . .”

228. The Plaintiff’s fully-vested Benefits constitute private property(ies) belonging to

the respective Plaintiffs (the “Property”).

229. The State took the Property from the Plaintiffs.

230. The State lacked justification for taking the Property from the Plaintiffs.

231. Said taking of the Property by the State from the Plaintiffs violates the Takings

Clause.

232. Save injunctive relief, the State’s violation of the Takings Clause, and substantial

resultant damage to the Plaintiffs, will continue.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINSTTHE DEFENDANTS


Due-Process Clause




21

234. The Rhode Island Constitution, Article 1, Section 2 (the “Due-Process Clause”)

provides:


“. . . .

“Section 2. Laws for good of whole -- . . . All free governments areinstituted for the protection, safety, and happiness of the people. All laws,therefore, should be made for the good of the whole; and the burdens of the stateought to be fairly distributed among its citizens. No person shall be deprived oflife, liberty or property without due process of law. . . .”

235. The State has deprived and continues to deprive the Plaintiffs of the Plaintiffs’

fully-vested Property.

236. Said deprivation of the Property by the State occurred without due process of law.

237. Said deprivation of the Property by the State violates the Due-Process Clause.

238. Save injunctive relief, the State’s violation of the Due-Process Clause, and

substantial resultant damage to the Plaintiffs, will continue.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINSTTHE DEFENDANTS

(Conversion)




22

240. The State retained the Benefits for the State’s use without the authorization of the

Plaintiffs.

241. The Plaintiffs were entitled to and/or had ownership of the Benefits which the

State converted for the State’s use.

242. The Plaintiffs did not consent to the State’s conversion of Benefits for the State’s

use.

243. The State exercised dominion over the Benefits inconsistent with the Plaintiffs’

entitlement to the Benefits which the State converted for the use of the State.

244. The Plaintiffs sustained damages and continue to sustain damage as a proximate

result of the foregoing conversion by the State.


as a proximate result of the ongoing conversion of the State.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINSTTHE DEFENDANTS

(Declaratory Judgment)



forth at length herein.

247. Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 23(a)(3) of Civil Procedure, a class-certification

perquisite is that “the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or

defenses of the class”.

23

248. Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 23(a)(4) of Civil Procedure, a class-certification

prerequisite is that “the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

the class”.

249. The prospective claims of the representative parties in Class (v) are not typical of

the Plaintiffs’ claims.

250. The claims of the Plaintiffs, each of whom retired prior to the enactment of

RIRSA, are disparate from, stronger than and/or adverse to the prospective claims of an

individual(s) who retired after the enactment of RIRSA.

251. Class (v) of the Class-Action Suit is comprised of all retirees, regardless of the

respective retiree’s date of retirement.

252. A class comprised of all retirees, regardless of the respective retirees’ date of

retirement, cannot fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Plaintiffs, all of whom retired

prior to the enactment of RIRSA.

253. Inclusion of the Plaintiffs in Class (v) would cause the Plaintiffs to suffer

irreparable harm.

254. The Plaintiffs request that this Court issue a final declaratory judgment declaring

that:

(a) the Plaintiffs shall not be included in Class (v) of the Proposed Settlement

at any time whatsoever;

(b) inclusion of the Plaintiffs in Class (v) of the Proposed Settlement would

violate applicable law and/or rules, including, without limitation, Rhode

Island Superior Court Rule 23 of Civil Procedure; and

24

(c) the Plaintiffs are entitled, without any precondition or constraint

(including any term or condition of the Proposed Settlement) whatsoever,

to file, maintain and/or support (financially or otherwise) the within

action.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINSTTHE DEFENDANTS

(Declaratory Judgment)



forth at length herein.

256. In the alternative event that the Plaintiffs are subject to the Proposed Settlement

and/or included in Class (v), the Plaintiffs may and/or would be represented by counsel with a

conflict(s) of interest.

257. The Proposed Settlement subjects the Plaintiffs, as members of Class (v), to

representation by counsel with a conflict(s) of interest because:

(a) the Plaintiffs’ interests may be and/or are adverse to prospective members

of Class (v) who retired after the enactment of RIRSA; and

(b) a significant risk exists that representation of the Plaintiffs by Class (v)

counsel will be materially limited by said counsel’s responsibilities to the

remaining members of Class (v).

25

258. Inclusion of the Plaintiffs in Class (v), and subjecting the Plaintiffs to

representation by counsel for the entirety of Class (v), would cause the Plaintiffs to suffer

irreparable harm.

259. Inclusion of the Plaintiffs in the RIPERC Suit would cause the Plaintiffs to suffer

irreparable harm.

260. The Plaintiffs request that this Court issue a final declaratory judgment declaring

that:

(a) the Plaintiffs shall not be included in the RIPERC Suit at any time

whatsoever;

(b) the Plaintiffs shall not be included in Class (v) of the Proposed Settlement

at any time whatsoever; and

(c) the Plaintiffs are entitled, without any precondition or constraint

(including any term or condition of the Proposed Settlement) whatsoever,

to file, maintain and/or support (financially or otherwise) the within

action.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINSTTHE DEFENDANTS

(Unjust Enrichment)




262. The Plaintiffs have conferred a benefit upon the State.

26

263. The State accepted and appreciated said benefit under circumstances that render

the State’s retention of said benefit, without paying the value of said benefit, inequitable.

264. Basic principles of equity and fairness demand restitution be made from the State

to the Plaintiffs.


as a proximate result of the unjust enrichment to, and the Plaintiffs’ failure to receive restitution

from, the State.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINSTTHE DEFENDANTS

(Quantum Meruit)




267. The Plaintiffs conferred a benefit on the State.

268. The State accepted said benefit.

269. Under the circumstances, it would be inequitable for the State to retain such

benefit without payment of the value of the benefit of the Plaintiffs.


as a proximate result of the State’s retention of such benefit without payment of the value of the

benefit to the Plaintiffs.

27

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:

(a) Order and Judgment of this Court, with respect to the First Cause

of Action, granting injunctive relief and an award of damages

which were sustained by the Plaintiffs;

(b) Order and Judgment of this Court, with respect to the Second

Cause of Action, granting injunctive relief and an award of

damages which were sustained by the Plaintiffs;

(c) Order and Judgment of this Court, with respect to the Third Cause



(d) Order and Judgment of this Court, with respect to the Fourth Cause



(e) Order and Judgment of this Court, with respect to the Fifth Cause



(f) Order and Judgment of this Court, with respect to the Sixth Cause



(g) final Declaratory Judgment of this Court with respect to the

Seventh Cause of Action, to wit, that:

(1) the Plaintiffs shall not be included in Class (v) of the

Proposed Settlement at any time whatsoever;

28

(2) inclusion of the Plaintiffs in Class (v) of the Proposed

Settlement would violate applicable law and/or rules,

including, without limitation, Rhode Island Superior Court

Rule 23 of Civil Procedure; and

(3) the Plaintiffs are entitled, without any precondition or

constraint (including any term or condition of the Proposed

Settlement) whatsoever, to file, maintain and/or support

(financially or otherwise) the within action.

(h) final Declaratory Judgment of this Court with respect to the Eighth

Cause of Action, to wit, that:

(1) the Plaintiffs shall not be included in the RIPERC Suit at

any time whatsoever;

(2) the Plaintiffs shall not be included in Class (v) of the

Proposed Settlement at any time whatsoever; and

(3) the Plaintiffs are entitled, without any precondition or

constraint (including any term or condition of the Proposed

Settlement) whatsoever, to file, maintain and/or support

(financially or otherwise) the within action;

(i) Order and Judgment of this Court, with respect to the Ninth Cause

of Action, granting an award of damages which were sustained by

the Plaintiffs;

29

(j) Order and Judgment of this Court, with respect to the Tenth Cause

of Action, granting an award of damages which were sustained by

the Plaintiffs; and

(k) Order and Judgment of this Court, granting other and further relief

as this Court may deem just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Plaintiffs pray for trial by jury with respect to all causes of action (or portions

thereof) triable by a jury.

Dated: Providence, Rhode IslandApril 3, 2014

PlaintiffsBy Their Attorneys

________________________________Sean T. O’Leary, Esq. (#6035)O’Leary Law Associates4060 Post RoadWarwick, Rhode Island [email protected]

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT KENT,...

Documents

Transcript of STATE OF RHODE ISLAND SUPERIOR COURT KENT,...