U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2005

Braham v. Alameda County Superintendent of Schools

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided August 4, 2005

141 F. App'x 619

Counsel

Ellen G. Winterbottom, Newport Beach, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants., George D. Prince, DAG, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Suzanne Claire Nyland, AUSA, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Intervenors., Dennis Popka, Jeff M. Yoss, Middlebrooke Kaiser & Popka, San Bernardino, CA, Christina L. Dyer, Best, Best & Krieger, San Diego, CA, Jeffrey P. Thompson, DeClues & Burkett, LLP, Huntington Beach, CA, Michael E. Burkett, DeClues & Burkett, LLP, Santa Ana, CA, Richard D. Oppenheim, Jr., Sylvester Oppenheim & Linde, Encino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM**

School districts in California, including County Offices of Education, are state agencies. See Eaglesmith v. Ward, 73 F.3d 857, 860 (9th Cir. 1995); Belanger v. Madera Unified Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 248, 254 (9th Cir. 1992). State agencies are not “persons” subject to qui tam liability under the False Claims Act. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a); Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 787-88, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the claims.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.