County of Solano v. LIONSGATE CORP.

Good Law
126 Cal. App. 4th 741·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 197·24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 362·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1187
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 8, 2005A103269; No A105131California4,354 words

Opinion

Opinion

Parrilli, J.

These consolidated appeals arise from an arbitrator’s decision, confirmed by the trial court, assessing civil penalties, costs, and attorney fees against Lionsgate Corporation (Lionsgate) and in favor of Solano County. In case number A103269, Lionsgate contends the arbitrator lacked the authority to rule on charges made by the County under the False Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 12650 et seq.), improperly awarded the County prejudgment interest and attorney fees, and misinterpreted certain conduct by Lionsgate as amounting to false claims. In case number A105131, Lionsgate Development Corporation, Kenneth Barker, and Lois Barker challenge an order amending the judgment to include them as judgment debtors.

In the published portion of our opinion, we hold that the arbitrator properly considered the County’s False Claims Act charges, but that the County was not entitled to prejudgment interest until after entry of the final arbitration award. Otherwise, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The parties’ dispute concerned Lionsgate’s performance of a contract to replace a bridge in Solano County. The contract incorporated Caltrans Standard Specifications, including the following arbitration…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.