Lawyers in the city’s pension case filed into Superior Court this afternoon to argue City Attorney Mike Aguirre’s objections to Judge Jeffrey Barton’s ruling last month, which significantly trimmed the stakes of his $900 million quest to a minimal amount.

“I think there’s a misunderstanding of really important information,” Aguirre said.

Aguirre asked the judge to give more credence to his theory that any benefit created in the pension deals that he claims were made by those who had a conflict of interest should be voided. In the opening stage of the trial, the unions convinced Barton of several points, such as:

  • The city can’t sue another entity, such as the retirement system, for violating the law that prohibits the city from going into debt without a vote of the public.
  • The city can’t sue over benefits that the unions argue were affirmed in previous court settlements.

Municipal Employees Association attorney Ann Smith said the objection was unnecessary because it just allowed Aguirre a chance to reargue the issues he already lost.

“The trial for these issues is over. The court gave ample time and every opportunity to each side,” Smith said.

If Barton denies the objection, Aguirre said he would take the issues from that first phase to an appellate court before the trial resumes to the stages that deal with statute of limitations and the actual merits of the conflict-of-interest allegations.


Leave a comment

We expect all commenters to be constructive and civil. We reserve the right to delete comments without explanation. You are welcome to flag comments to us. You are welcome to submit an opinion piece for our editors to review.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.