Plaintiff qui tam claimants appealed a summary judgment from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco - timscotty/timscotty GitHub Wiki

Plaintiff qui tam claimants appealed a summary judgment from the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco (California), which ruled that defendant bus company had no liability in an action under California's False Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 12650 et seq.).

Overview: Demandado sobre la base de carta de notificacion

The complaint alleged that the bus company had submitted claims for payment to a school district while knowingly failing to comply with contractual maintenance obligations. The bus company contended that the alleged false implied certification was not material because the district had declined to intervene, had declined to bring an action of its own for breach of contract, and had extended the bus company's contract after receiving its written assurance that it would correct violations. The court held that conflicting evidence and inferences precluded summary judgment because common sense, contractual language reflecting concerns about safety, and the district's insistence on prompt correction of violations could support a reasonable inference that the maintenance requirements were material. The district's reaction upon learning of the alleged false claims was not dispositive of the issue of materiality. A triable issue of fact also existed as to whether the bus company acted knowingly under Gov. Code, §§ 12650, subd. (b)(3), 12651, subd. (a)(1), because frequent maintenance failures and lack of regular audits could support a reasonable inference of reckless disregard of the truth.

The court reversed the judgment.

In a suit for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and declaratory relief brought by plaintiff doctor against defendant medical corporations, the Ventura County Superior Court, California, entered judgment for the doctor. The corporations appealed the judgment and the denial of its costs and attorney fees. The doctor cross-appealed regarding valuation of her corporate shares and her liability for not paying pension plan contributions.

The doctor, along with four other physicians, created a business to provide emergency care in hospitals. The business consisted of two corporations. The doctor was the chief financial officer and assumed responsibility for oversight of patient billing. A majority of directors and shareholders voted to remove the doctor as an officer and director and to redeem her shares for contracting with a billing company without prior shareholder approval. Regarding the corporations' claim that the doctor breached a shareholders' agreement and her fiduciary duties, the instant court concluded that the trial court properly decided that the doctor's acts and omissions were protected by the business judgment rule. The corporations were not a prevailing party in the litigation for costs and attorney's fees, but the trial court erred by denying the corporations postoffer attorney's fees under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 998. The trial court did not err by finding that the doctor breached the shareholders' agreement or by calculating the value of her shares. Sufficient evidence also supported the finding that the doctor was negligent for failing to pay pension plan contributions timely.

The order denying the corporations' postoffer attorney's fees was reversed, and the matter was remanded. In all other respects, the judgment and order were affirmed.