This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
False Claims Act
School Supplies/Equipment

State of California ex rel. David Sherwin v. Office Depot Inc.

Published: Dec. 13, 2014 | Result Date: Nov. 14, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC410135 Settlement –  $8,692,310

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Danny Y. Chou

Robert J. Nelson
(Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP)

Mark A. Kleiman
(Kleiman Rajaram)

Chesley D. Quaide

Lexi J. Hazam
(Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP)

Ronald S. Whitaker
(Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney)

Philip Sinco

Richard Egger

Eric R. Havian
(Constantine Cannon LLP)

Stephen S. Hasegawa

Greta Hansen

Kavita Narayan
(Office of the Santa Clara County Counsel)

G. Ross Trindle III

Altomease Kennedy

Dean Derleth

John D. Higginbotham

Dana J. McCune
(McCune & Harber LLP)

Edward H. Arens
(Phillips & Cohen LLP)

Orry P. Korb

Gilbert A. Trujillo


Defendant

John K. Rubiner
(Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP)

Gary S. Lincenberg
(Bird Marella)

Beth Levene

William P. Ashworth
(Williams & Connolly LLP)

Juli Ann Lund

Heather Stern

Nilay U. Vora
(The Vora Law Firm, P.C.)

Daniel Katz

Paul T. Hourihan


Facts

The State of California and qui tam plaintiff David Sherwin brought an action against Office Depot Inc. for money damages and penalties under the California False Claims Act.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that State of California governmental agencies and instrumentalities purchased an assortment of office products pursuant to the United States Communities/Los Angeles County contract with Office Depot. Plaintiff further alleged Office Depot submitted a number of requests for payments under this contract that were based on false and fraudulent claims. Plaintiff contended that Office Depot's false claims included, in part, increasing prices without notice as required by the contract and failing to provide California government agencies the best price given to Office Depot's best customers as required by the contract.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Office Depot denied the allegations of the complaint and alleged various affirmative defenses.

Result

The parties settled the lawsuit and Office Depot agreed to pay a total of $68,500,000 to be allocated among 19 intervenors and 1,276 real parties in interest. Among the parties, the City of Los Angeles agreed to accept $8,692,308 in settlement of its claims.


#119398

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390