People v. Superior Court of Riverside Cnty.
219 Cal. Rptr. 3d 436
| Cal. | 2017Background
- Dr. Hossain Sahlolbei, an independent contractor surgeon, served as co‑director of surgery and held leadership roles on the hospital medical staff and medical executive committee at Palo Verde Hospital, a public hospital.
- In 2009 Sahlolbei recruited anesthesiologist Brad Barth, negotiated a deal that paid Barth $36,000/month, then pressured the hospital Board to approve a larger contract and directed Barth’s paychecks to be deposited into Sahlolbei’s account; Sahlolbei retained the difference.
- The Riverside County District Attorney charged Sahlolbei with grand theft and a knowing, willful violation of Gov. Code § 1090 (conflicts of interest in public contracting).
- The trial court dismissed the § 1090 count; the Court of Appeal affirmed based on People v. Christiansen, which held independent contractors cannot be criminally liable under § 1090.
- The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether § 1090 can apply to independent contractors and whether the evidence supported a § 1090 theory that Sahlolbei was acting in an official capacity when influencing Barth’s contract.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1090 can apply to independent contractors | §1090 covers independent contractors who advise or engage in public contracting; legislative history supports broad scope. | Christiansen: independent contractors are categorically excluded; Reynolds requires common‑law employee test. | Independent contractors are not categorically excluded; §1090 applies to contractors entrusted to engage in or advise on public contracting. |
| Proper interpretive test for who is covered by § 1090 | Use statute history, purpose, and precedent expanding coverage to outside advisors; look to duties and functions, not label. | Apply common‑law employee/officer test (Reynolds/Christiansen) to limit reach. | Reject categorical common‑law exclusion; apply a functional test focused on whether contractor acted on behalf of the government in contracting duties. |
| Whether criminal liability under § 1097 differs from civil § 1090 application | §1097 criminalizes knowing and willful violations; past civil precedents inform criminal prosecutions. | Criminal context demands stricter, narrower interpretation and lenity. | No basis to interpret §1090 differently for criminal prosecutions; lenity does not control because statutory intent is discernible. |
| Whether evidence supports that Sahlolbei acted in an official capacity in making Barth’s contract | Evidence shows Hospital leadership asked Sahlolbei to recruit physicians; he used official influence (committee roles, threats to stop admissions) to obtain the contract and profited. | Board viewed Sahlolbei as Barth’s private representative during negotiations; his written duties didn’t explicitly include recruiting. | On the § 995 motion standard, a reasonable person could strongly suspect Sahlolbei acted in an official capacity; remand for further proceedings to resolve timing/affiliation issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Bement, 36 Cal.4th 1075 (discusses when to apply common‑law employee test and presumption against abrogating common law)
- Lexin v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.4th 1050 (framework for §1090/§1097 criminal enforcement and reading conflicts statutes together)
- Stigall v. City of Taft, 58 Cal.2d 565 (defines "making" a contract to include pre‑contract activities and broad prophylactic aims of §1090)
- Schaefer v. Berinstein, 140 Cal.App.2d 278 (earlier Court of Appeal holding outside advisors can be covered by §1090)
- Christiansen v. People, 216 Cal.App.4th 1181 (Court of Appeal decision holding independent contractors categorically excluded from §1090; disapproved here)
- United States v. Mississippi Valley Co., 364 U.S. 520 (federal precedent on conflicts statutes emphasizing prevention of temptation to dishonor)
- Thomson v. Call, 38 Cal.3d 633 (broad interpretation of "financial interest" under conflicts rules)
- Campagna v. City of Sanger, 42 Cal.App.4th 533 (treating outside attorney as within §1090 scope)
