City of Los Angeles, et al. v. Sprint Solutions, Inc. et al.

Filing 121

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 4/27/2022 DISMISSING CASE with prejudice. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any dispute arising between and among the parties under the Settlement Agreements, including but not limited to any disputes between the City and Relator related to the Relator's Share of the Settlement (an issue not resolved by theSettlement Agreements). CASE CLOSED(Reader, L)

1
2
o

:>
4

5
6
7
8
9
10

11
12

Colin H. Murray (State Bar No. 159142)
CO lin. mun'av@,bakemic kenzi e. c om
Anne M. Kelts (State Bar No. 298710)
anne.kelts@.bakermckenzie.com
BAKER & McKenzie llp
Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3802
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
John E. Joiner (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
iioiner@,wc.com
William P. Ashworth (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
washworth@.wc .com
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC. and
NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
[Additional counsel on signature page]

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

16
17
18

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ex rel. RICHARD
KNUDSEN,

19
20
21
22

Plaintiffs,
vs.
SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.; NEXTEL OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., D/B/A NEXTEL
COMMUNICATIONS AND SPRINT
NEXTEL; and DOES 1-10,

Case No, 2:17-cv-008n-TLN-AC
Date Action Was Transferred from
Central District of California:
April 18, 2017
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT
APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER
Judge:
Hon. Troy L. Nunley
Trial Date: None set

23
24

Defendants.

25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-081 l-'l'LN-AC
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER

STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER

1
2

The City of Los Angeles, Relator Richard Knudsen, Defendants Sprint Solutions, Inc. and

3

Nextel West Corp. (as successor to Defendant Nextel of California, Inc., d/b/a Nextel

4

Communications and Sprint Nextel) (collectively “Sprint”), and Relator’s current and former counsel

5

(“Relator’s counsel”), Waldan Macht & Haran, LLP (“WMH”), the Dolan Law Firm (“Dolan”), and

6

the Law Office of Matthew J. Durkett, APC (“Durkett”)* hereby stipulate and agree as follows;

7

WHEREAS, in 2005, California issued eRFP 5014 seeking submissions from wireless

8

carriers, including Sprint, for contracts to provide wireless services to the state and political

9

subdivisions, including the City. Sprint responded to eRFP in July 2005 and Sprint and California’s

10

Department of General Services entered a contract for provision of wireless services (the “CWC

11

Contract”);

12

WHEREAS, in 2006, the Western States Contracting Alliance (“WSCA”), acting by and

13

through the State of Nevada, awarded Sprint Contract #1523 and Contract #1907 (collectively, the

14

“WSCA Contracts”) for the purchase of wireless equipment and services;

15

WHEREAS, the State of California and Sprint executed a Participating Addendum to the

16

WSCA Contracts, Master Price Contract #7-10-70-15 (the “California Participating Addendum”),

17

which incorporated the terms of the WSCA Contracts and (at times) California DGS RFO 1070;

18

WHEREAS, on October 27, 2006 (No. 58644), July 1, 2011 (No. 59288), and February 1,

19

2013 (No. 59510) the City of Los Angeles entered into contracts with Sprint for the purchase of

20

wireless equipment and services (the “City Contracts”). Collectively, the WSCA Contracts, the

21

California Participating Addendum, and the City Contracts, are referred to as the “Wireless

22

Contracts”;

23

WHEREAS, on or about September 27, 2013, Relator filed a qui tarn action under the

24

California False Claims Act in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, Case No.

25

BC521193, naming Sprint as a defendant (the “Action”);

26
27
28

^ Nextel of California merged into Nextel West Corp. in May 2018, with Nextel West Corp. as the
surviving entity. Nextel West Corp. and Sprint Solutions, Inc. are indirect subsidiaries of T-Mobile
USA, Inc.
^
CASE NO. 2:17-cv.0811-TLN-AC
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER

1

WHEREAS, on or about September 9, 2016, the City intervened in the Action and filed a

2

Complaint-in-Intervention (the “Complaint”), alleging causes of action for violation of the California

3

False Claims Act, Breach of Contract, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and Unjust

4

Enrichment;

5
6

WHEREAS, the Action was removed to federal court and subsequently transferred to this
Court, and is currently pending as Case No. 2:17-cv-00811-TLN-AC;

7

WHEREAS, the Action alleges Sprint failed to comply with the Wireless Contracts with

8

respect to provisions that the City alleges required Sprint to provide the City vdth rate plan

9

optimization reports and with wireless services at the lowest cost available when the City purchased

10

wireless services from Sprint pursuant to the Wireless Contracts (the “Covered Conduct”);

11

WHEREAS, on October 29, 2019, the Court granted Sprint’s motion to dismiss the City’s

12

unjust enrichment claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied the remainder of Sprint’s motion to dismiss

13

under Rules 9 and 12;

14
15

WHEREAS, Relator’s counsel have asserted claims for statutory attorney’s fees under the
California False Claims Act gainst Sprint;

16

WHEREAS, Sprint denies any and all liability, contends that all claims against it have no

17

merit and are subject to numerous legal and factual defenses, and denies all allegations made in the

18

Complaint and the Action against it;

19

WHEREAS, the Parties, after several months of settlement discussions, including a full day

20

mediation before the Hon. Ronald Sabraw (Ret.), have agreed to resolve any and all claims the City,

21

Relator, and Relator’s counsel may have against Sprint related to the Covered Conduct, so as to avoid

22

the need for further protracted and costly litigation;

23

WHEREAS, to avoid the delay, inconvenience and expense of protracted litigation of the

24

claims in the Action, and in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations of the City, Relator,

25

Relator’s counsel, and Sprint contained in the Settlement Agreements, the Parties have agreed to settle

26

this litigation on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreements attached as Exhibit 1 and 2 (the

27

“Settlement Agreements”).

28
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-081 l-TLN-AC
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER

1

NOW THEREFORE, the parties stipulate and agree as follows:

2

1.

The terms of the Settlement Agreements are appropriate under the allegations of this

3

action, taking into account the best interests of the parties involved and the public purposes behind the

4

False Claims Laws.

5

reasonable, and were reached in good faith;
2.

6
7

Further, the terms of the Settlement Agreements are fair, adequate, and

The City, Sprint, Relator, and Relator’s counsel are bound by the terms of the

Settlement Agreements, including specifically the releases contained herein;

8

3.

This Action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

9

4.

The Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any dispute arising between and among

10

the parties under the Settlement Agreements, including but not limited to any disputes between the

11

City and Relator related to the Relator’s Share of the Settlement (an issue not resolved by the

12

Settlement A^eements).

13
14

COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP

Dated:

15
NI^^M^McCARTH^
16
Attorneys for PlaintffCity qfjLofAnfeles
17
18

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY

Dated:

19
20

ILLIAM P. ASHWORm"

21

Attorneys for Defendant Sprint

22
23
24

Dated:

4/23/2022

WALDEN MACHT & HARAN LLP
By:

DAN MILLER
25

Attorneys for Relator Richard Knudsen
26
27
28
CASE NO. 2; 17-cv-0811 -TLN-AC
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER

1
2

CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ex rel. RICHARD KNUDSEN v. SPRINT SOLUTIONS, INC.,
U.S. District Court For The Eastern District Of California - Case No. 2:17-CV-0811-TLN-AC

3
ORDER

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Date: April 27, 2022
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5
CASE NO. 2:17-cv-0811-TLN-AC
STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER