City of Los Angeles et al v. New Cingular Wireless National Accounts, LLC

Filing 82

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 05/10/2022 ORDERING The terms of the Settlement Agreements are appropriate under the allegations of this action. The City, AT&T, Relator, and Relator's counsel are bound by the t erms of the Settlement Agreements, including specifically the releases contained herein. This Action is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.The Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any dispute arising between and among the parties. CASE CLOSED. (Rodriguez, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 NIALL P. McCARTHY (SBN 160175) nmccarthy@cpmlegal.com COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP San Francisco Airport Office Center 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (650) 697-0577 Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Los Angeles 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CITY OF LOS ANGELES ex rel. RICHARD KNUDSEN, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 15 16 17 CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00816-TLN-AC STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER Judge: Trial Date: v. Hon. Troy L. Nunley None set NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS NATIONAL ACCOUNTS, LLC dba CINGULAR WIRELESS, NOW KNOWN AS AT&T MOBILITY NATIONAL ACCOUNTS LLC; and DOES 21-30, Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER; CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00816-TLN-AC 1 STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER 2 The City of Los Angeles, Relator Richard Knudsen, Defendant New Cingular Wireless 3 National Accounts, LLC d/b/a/ Cingular Wireless, Now Known as AT&T Mobility National 4 Accounts LLC (“AT&T”), and Relator’s counsel hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 5 WHEREAS, in 2005, California issued eRFP 5014 seeking submissions from wireless 6 carriers for contracts to provide wireless services to the state and political subdivisions, including the 7 City; 8 9 10 WHEREAS, in 2006, the Western States Contracting Alliance (“WSCA”), acting by and through the State of Nevada, awarded AT&T Contract #1523 and Contract #1907 (collectively, the “WSCA Contracts”) for the purchase of wireless equipment and services; 11 WHEREAS, the State of California and AT&T executed a Participating Addendum to the 12 WSCA Contracts, Master Price Contract #7-11-70-17 (the “California Participating Addendum”), 13 which incorporated the terms of the WSCA Contracts and (at times) California DGS RFO 1070; 14 WHEREAS, on March 1, 2007 (No. 58674), and May 1, 2013 (No. 59468) the City of Los 15 Angeles entered into contracts with AT&T for the purchase of wireless equipment and services (the 16 “City Contracts”). Collectively, the WSCA Contracts, the California Participating Addendum, and 17 the City Contracts, are referred to as the “Wireless Contracts”. 18 WHEREAS, on or about September 27, 2013, Relator filed a qui tam action under the 19 California False Claims Act in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County, Case No. 20 BC521567, naming AT&T as a defendant (the “Action”); 21 WHEREAS, on or about September 9, 2016, the City intervened in the Action and filed a 22 Complaint-in-Intervention (the “Complaint”), alleging causes of action for violation of the California 23 False Claims Act, Breach of Contract, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and Unjust 24 Enrichment; 25 26 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP WHEREAS, the Action was removed to federal court and subsequently transferred to this Court, and is currently pending as Case No. 2:17-cv-00816-TLN-AC; WHEREAS, the Action alleges AT&T failed to comply with the Wireless Contracts with respect to provisions that the City alleges required AT&T to provide the City with rate plan STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER; CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00816-TLN-AC 1 1 optimization reports and with wireless services at the lowest cost available when the City purchased 2 wireless services from AT&T pursuant to the Wireless Contracts (the “Covered Conduct”); 3 WHEREAS, on October 29, 2019, the Court granted AT&T’s motion to dismiss the City’s 4 unjust enrichment claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied the remainder of AT&T’s motion to dismiss 5 under Rules 9 and 12; 6 7 8 9 10 WHEREAS, Relator’s counsel have asserted claims for statutory attorney’s fees under the California False Claims Act against AT&T; WHEREAS, AT&T denies any and all liability, contends that all claims against it have no merit and are subject to numerous legal and factual defenses, and denies all allegations made in the Complaint and the Action against it; 11 WHEREAS, the Parties, after several months of settlement discussions, have agreed to 12 resolve any and all claims the City, Relator, and Relator’s counsel may have against AT&T related to 13 the Covered Conduct, so as to avoid the need for further protracted and costly litigation; 14 WHEREAS, to avoid the delay, inconvenience and expense of protracted litigation of the 15 claims in the Action, and in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations of the City, Relator, 16 Relator’s counsel, and AT&T contained in the Settlement Agreements, the Parties have agreed to 17 settle this litigation on the terms set forth in the Settlement Agreements attached as Exhibit 1 and 2 18 (the “Settlement Agreements”). 19 NOW THEREFORE, the parties stipulate and agree as follows: 20 1. The terms of the Settlement Agreements are appropriate under the allegations of this 21 action, taking into account the best interests of the parties involved and the public purposes behind 22 the False Claims Laws. Further, the terms of the Settlement Agreements are fair, adequate, and 23 reasonable, and were reached in good faith; 24 25 2. The City, AT&T, Relator, and Relator’s counsel are bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreements, including specifically the releases contained herein; 26 This Action is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 27 ♼ 3. 4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any dispute arising between and among 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP the parties under the Settlement Agreements, including but not limited to any disputes between the STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER; CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00816-TLN-AC 2 1 City and Relator related to the Relator’s Share of the Settlement (an issue not resolved by the 2 Settlement Agreements). 3 4 Dated: 5/3/22 5 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP By: 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff City of Los Angeles 7 8 /s/ NIALL P. McCARTHY Dated: 5/3/22 KING & SPALDING LLP 9 By: 10 11 /s/ JOHN C. RICHTER Attorneys for Defendant AT&T 12 13 14 15 16 Dated: 5/5/22 WALDEN MACHT & HARAN LLP By: /s/ DAN MILLER Attorneys for Relator Richard Knudsen 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER; CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00816-TLN-AC 3 1 ORDER 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 6 7 Dated: May 10, 2022 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ♼ 28 LAW OFFICES COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP STIPULATED SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND DISMISSAL ORDER; CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00816-TLN-AC 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?