Agenda

Return

C. 5

To:	Board of Supervisors
From:	Sharon L. Anderson, County Counsel
Date:	April 21, 2015

Contra

Costa

County

Subject:

Settlement of State of California et al., ex rel. Estate of Sherwin v. Office Depot, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC410135.

APPROVE	OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR	RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE

Action of Board On: 04/21/2015

APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED

OTHER

Clerks Notes:

VOTE OF SUPERVISORS

AYE:

John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor

ABSENT:

Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor

Contact:	Stephen M. Siptroth, Deputy County Counsel, 335-1817
cc:	Stephen M. Siptroth

I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: April 21, 2015
David Twa,

BY:	, Deputy

RECOMMENDATION(S):

1. APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the County’s participation in the settlement of State of California et al., ex rel. Estate of Sherwin v. Office Depot, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC410135.

2. DIRECT that settlement funds in the amount of $116,004.14 paid to the County be deposited in the following General Purpose Revenue Account, as recommended by the County Administrator: Org 0005, Acct. 9175 (Misc. Forfeits and Penalties).

FISCAL IMPACT:

The County will be paid $116,004.14 in settlement funds.

BACKGROUND:

The lawsuit captioned State of California et al., ex rel. Estate of Sherwin v. Office Depot, Inc., Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. BC410135, was filed under the California False Claims Act following a whistleblower complaint against Office Depot. The plaintiff and several intervenor public agencies allege that Office Depot engaged in unlawful practices that resulted in cities, counties, and special districts being overcharged for office supplies between 2005 and 2010. The County was named as a plaintiff in the lawsuit because it was among the cities, counties, and special districts that were allegedly overcharged by Office Depot.

On February 11, 2015, the Superior Court issued the following orders: an order approving the dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement reached by the parties; an order approving Office Depot’s payment of approximately $68.5 million as part of the settlement and the allocation of settlement; and an order approving an award of a portion (38%) of the settlement funds to the relator, the Estate of David Sherwin. That amount paid by Office Depot, minus the relator’s share, will be allocated among the cities, counties, and special districts on whose behalf the lawsuit was brought. The County will be paid a net amount of $116,004.14.

If there are no appeals of the Court’s orders by April 29, 2015, the orders will be final. The orders will be binding upon the County, unless the County appeals the orders. The Board of Supervisors may decide to appeal the Court’s orders. But an appeal of the orders could be costly and may not result in the County being awarded any more than it has been awarded in the orders.

For these reasons, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors authorize the County’s participation in the settlement of this lawsuit.

CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:

The County would not participate in the settlement.