|
Fassberg
Construction Co. v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles
(2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 720
Horvitz & Levy LLP obtained
a reversal of a $3.9 million judgment against government contractor
Fassberg Construction Company in this breach of contract
case. In doing so, the court provided clear definitions
for some
of the False Claims Act's basic terms, and clarified the
manner in which penalties for false claims may be calculated. (Read
the Court of Appeal’s opinion.)
Fassberg sued the Housing Authority
for breach of a contract for the construction of 25 residential
buildings. The Housing
Authority cross-complained for violation of the False Claims
Act (FCA) and related causes of action. A jury returned a
verdict for the Housing Authority. It found that Fassberg
had submitted 2,893 supposedly "false claims," for
which it awarded the Housing Authority $455,000 in damages.
Pursuant to the Act, these damages were trebled. In addition,
the court imposed FCA penalties in the amount of $1,446,500:
$500 for each one of the 2,983 "false claims" found
by the jury, as well as additional damages for breach of
contract.
The Court of Appeal held the record
did not support the jury's conclusion that Fassberg submitted
2,983 false claims.
A "claim" under the California False Claims Act
constitutes a "request or demand for money . . . ." (Gov.
Code, § 12650, subd. (b)(1).) The court ruled
that Fassberg's weekly payroll reports did not constitute "request[s]
or demand[s] for money" and therefore could not give
rise to penalties. Similarly, Fassberg's change order requests
were requests to modify the contract, not demands for immediate
payment. Because the contractor submitted only 49 requests
for payment, it could be liable at most for no more than
49 false claims.
The court also ruled the Housing Authority suffered no damages
as a result of Fassberg's alleged misstatements concerning
the wage rates it was paying its employees. The alleged misstatements
did not increase the cost of the agency's fixed price contract,
and therefore did not result in any damages.
Finally, the court ruled that, because the award of treble
damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act serves
primarily a punitive purpose, an award of punitive damages
in such cases will generally be duplicative and unwarranted.
Home
| Firm Directory | About H &
L | Practice Areas | H
& L News
Seminars | Publications
| Recruiting | Directions
| Links | Site
Map
|