SF Unified Sch. Dist. v. Laidlaw Transit

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Filed 3/25/10 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ex rel. MANUEL CONTRERAS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LAIDLAW TRANSIT, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. A123914 (City & County of San Francisco Super. Ct. No. CGC-07-463308) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on February 26, 2010, be modified as follows: At the end of the paragraph commencing at the bottom of page 18 with In this case and ending at the top of page 19 with payments as requested add as footnote 16 the following footnote: 16 In a petition for rehearing, Laidlaw contends that, in order to satisfy the materiality requirement for an implied certification claim, a plaintiff must plead facts regarding how the relevant government entity monitored contract performance. Laidlaw cites to nothing in the CFCA supporting its position, and Laidlaw cites to no cases imposing such a pleading requirement. There is no change in the judgment. Respondent s petition for rehearing is denied.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.