MacDowell

MacDowell v. Synnex Corporation

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 20, 20193:19-cv-00173California1,903 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

17 In this False Claims Act action, qui tam relator moves for leave to file a fourth amended 18 19 complaint. To the extent stated below, the motion is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

20 Previous orders have explained this case. In short, defendant Synnex Corporation sells 21 office products to the federal government. In 1980, defendant entered into a contract with the 22 government for the sale of electric power-supply products. The contract incorporated the Trade 23 Agreements Act which necessitated end products sold to the United States Government be 24 manufactured in certain countries. In 2006, Synnex entered into a contract with Huawei 25 Technologies Co., Ltd., a Chinese technology corporation, to sell technology components in the 26 United States. As a result of the agreement, Synnex imported products from APC by Schneider 27 Electric (formerly known as American Power Conversion Corporation), which contained 28 1 supply products to the government under the MAS 70 contract knowing that they contained 2 parts from APC that were manufactured in TAA noncompliant countries (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 6, 9, 43, 3 45). 4 Relator Matthew MacDowell filed the instant action in…

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.