Telecom Providers Settle California Case
Defendants Allegedly Overcharged For Wireless Services
California Recovers $116 Million And Whistleblower Receives $46.4 Million Reward
Blowing the whistle on fraud against the State of California may entitle you to a substantial reward if the State recovers money as a result of your efforts. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12652(g). The process begins with a State whistleblower (or “qui tam”) case brought under the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”). See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12650 et seq. The Statute protects any whistleblower from employer retaliation. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12653. The whistleblower litigators at Evans Law Firm, Inc. represent whistleblowers in CFCA cases against government contractors, product manufacturers, service providers, pharmaceutical companies, and other healthcare groups who defraud the State of California. Our litigators can also represent you in any action against an employer who retaliates against you for blowing the whistle If you have credible information for a California false claims case, call us today at (415)441-8669 and we can help.
Large CFCA Telecom Case Settles
Just this Fall, several telecom providers settled allegations in a California FCA case that they had overcharged State judicial and educational systems hundreds of millions of dollars by failing to charge the government entities at the “lowest cost available” as their service contracts with the State required. A small wireless optimization firm creating software for the State realized while working for the State that several wireless carriers had failed to provide cost-saving opportunities to the State which their service contracts required. The owner of the consulting firm sued the carriers on behalf of the State of California under the qui tam provision of the CFCA. The State of California and the wireless carriers reached a $116 million settlement earlier this Fall and the firm that initiated the qui tam will receive approximately 40% of that amount.
How A California False Claims Case Works
A whistleblower/qui tam lawsuit under the CFCA starts with a complaint filed under seal in the Superior Court of California and a simultaneous disclosure to the State Attorney General setting forth the material evidence on which the allegations in the sealed complaint are based. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12652(c)(2) and (3). The defendants alleged to have committed the fraud against California are not served with the complaint until after the California Attorney General reviews the complaint and directs the Court to lift the seal. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12652(c)(9). The initial time period for the State to review the Complaint is 60 days but the Court can extend that seal period if the State requests more time to investigate. If the State declines to intervene in the case and the whistleblower prosecutes the case on her own, the whistleblower can receive up to 50% of the amount recovered by the State. Cal. Gov’t Code § 12652(g)(4).
Ingrid M. Evans and our California whistleblower attorneys handle California False Claims Act whistleblower cases throughout the State of California. Ingrid and the other attorneys also represent whistleblowers before the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding tax avoidance schemes and before the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in securities and investment fraud cases and in cases brought under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”) for bank fraud. If you have information about fraud against the State of California or other fraud that may be the basis for any type of whistleblower case, call Ingrid and the other California whistleblower and false claims attorneys at Evans Law Firm at (415) 441-8669, or by email at <a href=”mailto:email@example.com”>firstname.lastname@example.org</a>.
 Evans Law Firm, Inc. was not involved in the case in any way. The case, presided over by the Honorable Judy Holzer Hersher, is captioned State of California et al. ex rel. OntheGo Wireless, LLC v. Cellco Partnership et al., Case No. 34-2012-00127517 (Sacramento County Superior Court).