June 30, 2020 Supreme Court No. 2017-248-Appeal. No. 2017-249-Appeal. (KM 13-1127) Arthur Quattrucci et al. : v. : James Lombardi, in his capacity as Treasurer : of the City of Providence, Rhode Island. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence, Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or Email opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov, of any typographical or other formal errors in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. Supreme Court No. 2017-248-Appeal. No. 2017-249-Appeal. (KM 13-1127) Arthur Quattrucci et al. : v. : James Lombardi, in his capacity as Treasurer : of the City of Providence, Rhode Island. Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ. OPINION Chief Justice Suttell, for the Court. This appeal concerns a retired firefighter and two retired police officers (collectively plaintiffs) who contend that the City of Providence (the City) violated the terms of two Superior Court consent judgments entered in 2004. The plaintiffs filed a miscellaneous petition in Superior Court seeking to enforce those judgments and to hold the City in contempt. The plaintiffs now appeal from a final judgment dismissing their petition and granting judgment for the City. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court and remand the case for further proceedings. I Facts and Procedural History The plaintiffs are Arthur Quattrucci (Quattrucci), who served as a firefighter for the City and retired in 1992, and John A. Santilli (Santilli) and Robert P. Garvin (Garvin), who served as police officers for the City and also retired in 1992.1 All three plaintiffs retired under collective 1 Quattrucci retired on March 26, 1992. Santilli retired on December 17, 1992, and Garvin retired on July 22, 1992. -1- bargaining agreements (CBAs).2 At the time of their retirements, City of Providence Chapter 1991-5, Ordinance No. 18 provided a 5 percent compounded cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for police officers who retired on or after June 30, 1991, and the same for firefighters who retired on or after July 1, 1991. After plaintiffs’ respective retirements, the City enacted ordinances in 1995 and 1996 reducing their COLAs. The plaintiffs, among others, sued and reached settlements with the City in 2004, which were embodied in consent judgments (the 2004 Consent Judgments).3 Each consent judgment provides, in part: “[t]he defendants, their agents, successors and all persons acting under them are permanently enjoined from denying the * * * plaintiffs the COLAs that are required to be paid under the CBAs that were in place at the time of their retirement. * * * The defendants, their agents, successors and all persons acting under them are compelled to pay the * * * plaintiffs the COLAs that are required to be paid under the CBAs that were in place at the time of their retirement.” Thereafter, in April 2012, the City enacted Chapter 2012-20, Ordinance No. 276 (the Pension ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals