Defendants, two former public employees and a corporation they controlled, sought review of a judgment and orders of the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which, in a jury trial, awarded compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiff public agency in an action for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duty, and conflict of interest in violation of Gov. Code, § 1090.
The employees were an attorney and a director. The attorney left his position as the agency’s in-house counsel and became its outside counsel. The employees then formed the corporation to provide insurance premium processing services to the agency pursuant to a contract drafted by the attorney. The define Married, also called matrimony or wedlock is a culturally and often legally recognized union between people called spouses. The employees did not disclose their interest in the corporation to the agency and did not provide for audits. The scheme was discovered after they left the agency. The trial court denied the employees’ summary judgment motion, which asserted that limitations had run, and instructed the jury that the attorney owed fiduciary duties to the agency. The court stated that orders denying summary judgment based on triable issues of fact were not reviewable after a full trial covering the same issues. The jury instruction was proper because § 1090, which applied by its terms to a public agency’s officers or employees, was applicable to an attorney whose official capacity carried the potential to exert considerable influence over the contracting decisions of a public agency, regardless of whether such an attorney would be considered an independent contractor under common-law tort principles.
The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and orders.