F I L E D Clerk of the Supen'or Court

MICHAEL A. CONGER, ESQUIRE (State Bar # LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. CONGER. P.O. Box San Dieguito Road, Suite - Rancho Santa Fe, California 0 Telephone: ( -000 Facsimile: ( -0 Attorney for Plaintiffs John Frugoni, Diana Groff, and Robyn L. Perlin, and All Others Similarly Situated F I L E D Clerk of the Supen'or Court 0 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO JOHN FRUGONI, DIANA GROFF, and CASE NO: ROBYN L. PERLIN, -G-CJ0a.ctJ-NP-GTL Plaintiffs, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR NEGLIGENCE v. CAJON V ALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT, and DOES to 0, inclusive, Defendants. 0 THIS IS A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT.. This is a class action lawsuit brought by the plaintiffs John Frugoni ("Frugoni", Diana Groff ("Groff' and Robyn L. Perlin ("Perlin," and collectively "Plaintiffs" former longtime teachers or administrators with the Cajon Valley Union School District ("CVUSD". Each of the plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, are members and beneficiaries ofthe California State Teachers' Retirement System ("CaISTRS". Plaintiffs bring this suit on their own behalf and for all those others similarly situated. The definition ofthe class is set forth in paragraph ofthis complaint.. This class action is brought pursuant to section ofthe California Code of Civil Procedure. The relief, including monetary damages, sought by the plaintiffs, both

0 0 individually and on behalf of the class, exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits ofthe Superior Court.. Venue is proper in San Diego County because the acts which led to the claims in this complaint occurred in San Diego County.. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of defendants DOES to 0, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiffs, who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each ofthe defendants designated herein as a DOE is responsible in some mimner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and caused injury and damages as herein alleged. Plaintiffs will seek leave ofcourt to amend this complaint, ifnecessary, to set forth the true names and capacities of such named defendants when their identities become known to them.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each defendant named in this action, including DOE defendants, at all relevant times, was the agent, ostensible agent, servant, employee, representative, assistant,joint venturer, and/or co-conspirator of each of the other defendants, and was at all times acting within the course and scope of his, her, or its authority as agent, ostensible agent, servant, employee, representative, joint venturer, and/or co-conspirator, and with the same authorization, consent, permission or ratification ofeach of the other defendants.. Plaintiffs, and all ofthose similarly situated, were employed by the CVUSD, either as teachers, in excess of 0 years, or administrators, in excess of years.. Throughout the careers ofthe plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, the CVUSD included as part oftheir compensation payments designed to reward district employees for their service with the district and its students.. This compensation was consistently paid to district employees over the course of their careers upon attainment of a certain number of years of service. These payments were always included as part ofthe plaintiffs' pensionable compensation, and the plaintiffs and the district paid employee and employer contributions, respectively, to CalSTRS at all times.

0 0 0. During the 00/00 school year, the CVUSD modified this portion ofthe plaintiffs' compensation package in direct response to the steep decline in student enrollment beginning in the 00/00 school year.. The 00/00 modified compensation package essentially provided that any teacher who had completed at least 0 years of service with the district, or any administrator who had completed at least years with the district, would be paid a compensatory increment so long as that person executed, on or before September, an irrevocable resignation or retirement letter effective June 0 ofthe year in which the increment was paid (the "Modified Plan".. The CVUSD expressly informed the plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, that compensation derived from the Modified Plan would be included in as pensionable pay, i.e., included in the plaintiffs' retirement calculations. Based on information and belief, the CVUSD never checked with CalSTRS to determine if its representations were correct before informing its long-time employees that payments under the Modified Plan would be included in pensionable compensation.. The district's express purpose in adopting the Modified Plan was to reward longserving employees for their dedication to the district and its students, rather than to enhance the plaintiffs' retirement allowances.. Between 00 and 0, approximately CVUSD teachers and administrators, including the plaintiffs and those similarly situated, retired with the express understanding, as conveyed by the CVUSD, that compensation received under the Modified Plan would be included in determining their pensions.. All of the Modified Plan payments were reported to CalSTRS as pensionable compensation, and both the affected employees and the district made timely employee and employer contributions, respectively, to CaISTRS.. At no time until May, 0, did CalSTRS notify the CVUSD or the plaintiffs (including those similarly situated, that the Modified Plan payments should not have been included as pensionable compensation.. Before the plaintiffs retired, or submitted a resignation letter, each met with a

0 0 CalSTRS counselor for the purpose of determining, if the employee were to retire, the amount of pension that retiring employee would receive from CaISTRS. The Modified Plan payments were always conspicuously disclosed to CalSTRS in the data reviewed by the CaISTRS' counselor at these meetings.. At no time did any CaISTRS' counselor disclose to the plaintiffs, or those similarly situated, that the Modified Plan payments should not be included in pensionable compensation. To the contrary, CaISTRS' counselor affirmatively calculated and informed the plaintiffs (and those similarly situated what his or her pension would be ifthat employee retired at that time. These calculations by CalSTRS always included compensation paid under the Modified Plan.. Each ofthe plaintiffs (and those similarly situated made irrevocable decisions to retire based on information provided to them by the CVUSD and CalSTRS, namely that compensation received under the Modified Plan would be pensionable compensation and included in calculating the plaintiffs' pensions. 0. In early 0, CaISTRS informed the plaintiffs (and those similarly situated, then irrevocably retired after a lifetime of dedicated service to the district and its students, that they would all have their pensions reduced prospectively and retroactively, and be required to reimburse CalSTRS because their pensions were incorrectly calculated including compensation under the Modified Plan as pensionable compensation.. To the extent the plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, are required to exhaust administrative remedies or comply with the Government Claims Act, they have done so. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS. This action is brought under California Code of Civil Procedure section.. The plaintiff class consists of "All retired teachers and administrators of the Cajon Valley Unified School District affected by the California State Teachers Retirement System's 0 recalculation (known as Project # SEAI0-.". This action is brought and is maintained properly as a class action under Code of Civil Procedure section because:

(a (b (c The questions and issues of law and fact raised herein are of a common and general interest affecting the class; The plaintiff class is estimated to contain individuals and it is impractical to bring all members ofthe class individually before the court; The questions of law or fact common to the class are substantially similar and predominate over those questions that affect individual members. These common questions include: 0 0 (i (ii (iii (iv (v (vi (vii Was the CVUSD negligent in failing to check with CalSTRS when it created the Modified Plan to ensure that compensation paid under the plan was pensionable? Was the CVUSD negligent in informing the plaintiff class that compensation paid under the Modified Plan was pensionable when it had no reasonable basis for so believing? What is the appropriate remedy? What is the proper method of calculating damages? Is the plaintiff class entitled to prejudgment interest? What are the proper in limine rulings and evidentiary rulings? Are the plaintiffs entitled to attorney fees? (d (e (f The plaintiffs' claims are typical of those ofthe class; The representative plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests ofthe class, have no interests which conflict with the class, and have retained an attorney experienced in the prosecution of class and multi-plaintiff pension litigation to represent the class herein; The prosecution of separate actions by individual members ofthe class will create a risk of: (i inconsistent or varying adjudications

0 (g with respect to individual members of the class which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for defendants; or (ii adjudications with respect to some individual members which would, as a practical matter, be dispositive ofthe interest ofthe other members not parties to the adjudications; or (iii adjudications which would substantially impair or impede the ability of individual members to protect their interests; A plaintiff class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication ofthe claims presented in this complaint, and will prevent the undue financial, administrative and procedural burdens on the parties and on this Court which individual litigations would impose. 0. Proof ofa common or single practice or factual pattern, ofwhich the plaintiffs' experience is representative, will establish the right ofeach ofthe members ofthe plaintiff class to recover on the causes of actions herein alleged.. Plaintiffs were subject to a pattern ofpractice and was thereby treated by the defendants in a similar manner, as is specifically alleged elsewhere in this complaint.. The plaintiff class is entitled in common to damages for which the defendants are liable. This action is brought for the benefit ofthe entire class and will result in the creation ofa common fund. The representative plaintiffs will expend efforts and expense to prevail in this action from which other plaintiffs and members ofthe class will derive benefits. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE AGAINST CVUSD AND DOES -0. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs through as though fully set forth herein.. The CVUSD owed a duty to the plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, not to act in a negligent manner.

0 0. The CVUSD breached that duty when it represented to the plaintiffs (and others similarly situated that the compensation paid under the Modified Plan would be included in pensionable compensation and be included in determining their pensions. proven at trial.. The CVUSD's negligence caused the plaintiffs damages in an amount to be SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE AGAINST CVUSD AND DOES -0. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs through as though fully set forth herein.. The CVUSD owed a duty to the plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, not to act in a negligent manner.. The CVUSD breached that duty in its dealings with CalSTRS in determining that the compensation paid to the plaintiffs under the Modified Plan (and others similarly situated was properly to be included as pensionable compensation to be used in determining the plaintiffs pensions. proven at trial.. The CVUSD's negligence caused the plaintiffs damages in an amount to be THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE AGAINST CVUSD AND DOES -0. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and reallege paragraphs through as though fully set forth herein.. The CVUSD owed a duty to the plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, not to act in a negligent manner.. The CVUSD breached that duty in its dealings with CalSTRS for failing to inquire whether the compensation paid to the plaintiffs under the Modified Plan (and others similarly situated was properly to be included as pensionable compensation to be used in

determining the plaintiffs pensions. 0. The CVUSD's negligence caused the plaintiffs damages in an amount to be proven at trial. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that, following a duly noticed hearing:. For damages according to proof;. For prejudgment interest;. F or attorney fees;. F or the costs of suit; and. Award such other and further relief as it deems necessary and proper. 0 Dated: March, 0 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. CONGER By: Jury Trial Demanded. 0