Southern California Fraud Litigation Attorney
Unscrupulous individuals have always been willing to use deceptive tactics to improve their bottom line. Bernard Madoff wasn’t the first or the last big time crook. We have successfully represented indviduals and businesses and government entities in cases arising out of investment schemes,art forgeries,and criminal conduct in state and federal court for 20 years. In Los Angeles we have represented creditors against Ezri Namvar and his company,Namco.
On July 7,2011 Mr. Gentry won $438,000.00 in a fraud case stemming from a contract dispute. ( Case No.NC 054938 DNI-Allegre Foods,Inc. v. Allegre Foods,Inc. ) In August of 2011 Mr. Gentry successfully settled a fraud case in which he represented the defendant arising out of a contract dispute for low six figures even though the claimant alleged millions in damages.
When business deals go bad claims of fraud and deceit are sometimes included in breach of contract actions. This is often the case in disputes between partners or business co-owners. If your business has been the victim of fraud or if you have been falsely accused of committing civil or criminal fraud,we can help. Call 800486 6814 for a free consultation.
Many entreprenuers inadvertently find themselves to be defendants in fraud actions brought by disgruntled investors. Invariably these fraud lawsuits could have been avoided had the business entreprenuer consulted with a lawyer in preparing his investment offerings. By being too cheap to pay for a proper contract,the entreprenuers face potentially disasterous fraud lawsuits that usually allege the entreprenuer mislead the other party as to the facts upon which the investor based his decision to invest. For more information on fraud lawsuits arising out of investment offerings read this blog post.
On October 6,2010 Mr. Gentry won a jury verdict of over $3,000,000 on behalf of the City of Compton. Read about the case here. Read the LA Times article about the case here. The victory was one of the largest civil jury verdicts of the year.
After a month long proceeding,the jury found that Stephen Okonta,the former City of Compton Risk Manager and Worker’s Compensation Department Coordinator conspired separately with a marriage and family therapist named Aline Smith and an individual named Emmanuel Ogbodo to submit bills for health care services that were never actually rendered.
After the verdict Mr. Gentry sucessfully argued that because the case was brought under the California False Claims Act the law requires the damages to be tripled.
A little-known statute “deputizes”private citizens in the war on all types of fraud against the government –not just health care fraud –and rewards them if the government recovers money as a result of information they supplied. The Civil False Claims Act,also known as the Qui Tam Statute,31 U.S.C. Section 3729 et seq.,allows a private person to sue a person or company who is knowingly submitting false bills to the federal government. The Act also protects qui tam plaintiffs who are “demoted,suspended,threatened,harassed or in any other manner discriminated against in the terms and conditions of employment”for acts done in furtherance of filing a claim under the Act. This provision allows reinstatement,double back pay,interest on the back pay,plus special damages including litigation costs and reasonable attorneys’fees.
The State of California has a similar law,the California False Claims Act. If you work for a company that submits bills to government programs such as Medicare or Medicaid (for example blood testing labs,nursing homes,ambulance companies,hospitals,and others) and find yourself the victim of discrimination,harassment,or joblessness after reporting suspected billing fraud to your boss contact us for a free consultation at 800 486 6814.
Fraud and deceit are defined in Civil Code Sections 1572,1709 and 1710. Although courts and lawyers use the terms interchangeably,fraud technically applies only to contract actions. Section 1709 of the California Civil Code states that deceit is an act by someone “who willfully deceives another with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk.”
Section 1710 specifies four kinds of deceit:
- Intentional misrepresentation of a fact
- Negligent misrepresentation of a fact
- Concealment or suppression of a fact
- Promissory fraud:
Damages in Fraud Cases
Most people know that fraud is one category of behavior that the court may find warrants punitive damages,but what else may be recovered?
Civil Code section 1709,in addition to defining fraud,makes it clear that a person who commits fraud is liable for all damages caused by the act.
The most common measure of the damages or the compensation the victim will receive in a fraud case is referred to as the out-of-pocket rule.
The out-of-pocket measure of damages looks specifically at what was lost as a result of a fraudulent act. It is intended to restore the victim to the financial position they held prior to the act. To do so,it awards the victim the difference between the actual value of what they gave and the actual value of what they received. The victim may also recover funds he reasonably spent in reliance on the misrepresentation if those amounts would not otherwise have been spent.
Call 800 486 6814 for a free,no obligation consultation.
Or email us at esther@galengentry.com
