California ex rel. Grayson v. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., C050296
Sustaining defendant's demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend, in action seeking bounty under False Claims Act for compelling defendants to escheat to the state balances on prepaid telephone cards by evading procedures provided by the Unclaimed Property Law, is affirmed, but affirmance is based on: 1) complaint's failure to overcome the jurisdictional bar established by section 12652 of the FCA; and 2) plaintiff's lack of standing to pursue his unfair competition claims set forth in his second cause of action.
- Decided 08/31/2006
- Published 08/31/2006
California Court of Appeal
Brian Taugher, Sacramento; Bronster Crabtree & Hoshibata and Margery S. Bronster, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Pillsbury Winthrop, Christopher R. Ball, San Francisco; Sidley Austin, Mark E. Haddad, Steven A. Ellis, Robert A. Holland, Nitin Reddy, San Francisco; Keker & Van Nest, Robert A. Van Nest, Steven A. Hirsch, R. James Slaughter, San Francisco; Reed Smith, Michele Floyd and Raymond Cardozo, San Francisco, for Defendants and Respondents Pacific Bell Telephone Co., AT & T Corporation, AT & T Wireless Services, Inc., and Sprint Communications Company and its affiliates Sprint Co., Ltd. Partnership and Sprint Int'l. Communications Corp., Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton and Steven B. Sacks, San Francisco, for Defendants and Respondents Nextel Communications, Inc., Nextel of California, Inc., Nextel Operations, Inc., and Nextel Retail Stores, Inc.