|
4310 REVIEW DENIED Prior publication in various trade publications and at the state Controller's website, and public discussion by various watchdog organizations, of information about a telecommunication company's failure to escheat to the state unused balances on pre-paid calling cards as required by the Unclaimed Property Law deprived the court of jurisdiction over plaintiff's putative qui tam action under the False Claims Act; plaintiff's allegations of inside information were not sufficiently specific to make him the original source of the information that appeared in those publications.CitationSTATE exrel GRAYSON v PAC BELL (Qui Tam Jurisdiction) 142 CA4 741 [See: GovC 12650 etseq; B&PC 17200, etseq; Rothschild v Tyco 83 CA4 488, T/AT 1/00]
|
|
