Ricotta v. San Diego Co. Employees Retirement Assn.
Thomas Ricotta, Sr. (Thomas) filed a complaint against the San Diego County Employees Retirement Association (SDCERA) alleging seven causes of action. All of Thomas's claims are based on the premise that SDCERA acted illegally in paying a portion of Thomas's pension benefits to the estate of his former wife, Ellen Ricotta (Ellen), pursuant to a 1998 family court order (1998 Order). Thomas maintains that the 1998 Order is defective and invalid.[1] SDCERA filed a demurrer in which it argued that it could not be held liable for obeying a court order, among other contentions. The trial court sustained SDCERA's demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of SDCERA.
On appeal, Thomas claims that the 1998 Order is invalid on various grounds, including that the pension benefits are his separate property and may not be paid to his former wife's estate. Thomas also claims that the 1998 Order was procured by extrinsic fraud and violates federal law, including the Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12131 et. seq.).
We conclude that SDCERA cannot be held liable for complying with the 1998 Order, and that the validity of the 1998 Order may not be adjudicated in this action. We affirm the judgment.[2]
Comments on Ricotta v. San Diego Co. Employees Retirement Assn.