State Ex Rel. Bartlett v. Miller
197 Cal. Rptr. 3d 673
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Bartlett filed an amended qui tam complaint under CFCA alleging ClubCorp failed to escheat unclaimed initiation deposits.
- The trial court dismissed the CFCA claim as barred by the CFCA public disclosure bar (former § 12652, d(3)(A)) based on ClubCorp SEC filings stating escheatment issues.
- The SEC filings disclosed ClubCorp's practice of not escheating unclaimed deposits and referenced a multistate audit; California's involvement in the audit was later clarified.
- Bartlett argued SEC disclosures do not fall within the enumerated public fora and thus do not trigger the bar; the State argued they do.
- The appellate court held the public disclosure bar does not extend to SEC filings under the plain text and construction of CFCA, and remanded for further proceedings to resolve original-source and other pending issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CFCA public disclosure bar applies to SEC filings | Bartlett: SEC filings are not enumerated fora. | State: SEC filings are a public disclosure via an audit report. | SEC filings are not within enumerated fora; bar does not apply here. |
| Whether audit disclosures trigger public disclosure bar | Bartlett: audit disclosures were not publicly disclosed outside government records. | State: disclosures in the audit contribute to public disclosure. | Public disclosure via the audit, as disclosed, did not occur in the enumerated fora. |
| Whether Bartlett is an original source to defeat the bar | Bartlett: ongoing investigation by the State does not preclude original-source status. | ClubCorp/State: Bartlett may or may not be an original source depending on disclosure timing. | Remanded to determine original-source status with a fuller factual record. |
| Whether SEC disclosures count as news media disclosures | Bartlett: SEC database postings could be news media. | State: SEC filings are not news media disclosures. | SEC filings in the EDGAR database are not disclosures by the news media. |
| Whether CFCA retroactivity affects the outcome | Bartlett: 2012 amendment effected no substantive change and likely retroactivity issue is unsettled. | State: amendments clarify the bar and may be retroactive. | Court did not rely on retroactivity to resolve; remanded for further proceedings on substantive questions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wohlner v. H&C Disposal Co., 109 Cal.App.4th 1668 (Cal. App. 2003) (public disclosure bar aims to deter parasitic qui tam actions)
- Pacific Bell Telephone Co., 142 Cal.App.4th 741 (Cal. App. 2006) (fora identified in CFCA limit public disclosures for bar)
- Mao's Kitchen, Inc. v. Mundy, 209 Cal.App.4th 132 (Cal. App. 2012) (public disclosure requires public-domain information beyond government alone)
- Harris v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, 39 Cal.4th 1220 (Cal. 2006) (CFCA structure and qui tam recovery framework)
- Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 559 U.S. 280 (U.S. 2010) (federal public disclosure bar interpretations and limitations)