Provides detailed information about the case during Blog Interview
vector scales of justice and gavel
The attorney for the plaintiff, Mr. Rich Harris, who is suing Yavapai Community College and NorthAire on behalf of former Yavapai Community College Aviation Director Dan Hamilton, was interviewed by the Blog regarding his theory of the case. The case has dragged on for almost 6 years and neither the Community College nor NorthAire or Guidance Aviation have been able persuade the federal district court to grant or dismiss all of the claims. If successful, the Defendants might have to pay over $100,000,000. The matter has been scheduled for a settlement conference in July.
The Plaintiff seeks personal damages in the amount of at least $1 million for contract (salary) damages, plus recovery on various tort damage theories.
Based on the remaining claims, the plaintiff’s attorney sets out the following that suggests that damages in theory could exceed a hundred million dollars.
In this case, the Plaintiff is titled “Relator.” The following is a partial copy of a settlement document obtained by the Blog and then edited by the Blog to help readers better understand the theories. Remember, these claims are not evidence; they are only the views of the plaintiff’s attorney and are based on his best estimates.
1. Prospects of Defendants Winning Are Low
a. Defendants’ past history of lost dispositive motions indicates a strong likelihood of Relator succeeding trial.
- Guidance Defendants moved to dismiss certain claims against them with prejudice (Guidance Doc. 23)
- The Court refused to dismiss with prejudice, but rather granted Relator leave to amend his Complaint (Guidance Doc. 74)
- Guidance Defendants moved to dismiss Relator’s Third Amended (Guidance Doc. 94)
- The Court (Judge Rosenblatt) again substantially denied dismissal ordering the lion’s share of the case to proceed. (Doc. 127 in Guidance).
- Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint in the NA (NorthAire Doc. 49)
-
- The Court (Judge Snow) denied that motion (NorthAire Doc. 90)
-
- Guidance Defendants moved for summary judgment in the Guidance (Guidance Doc. 189)
-
- The Court (Judge Snow) denied Guidance Defendants summary judgment. (Guidance Doc. 414)
-
- Morgan Defendants moved for summary judgment in the Guidance (Guidance Doc. 244)
- The Court (Judge Snow) substantially denied Morgan Defendants summary judgment (Guidance Doc. 414)
- Yavapai and Morgan Defendants moved for summary judgment in the Guidance (Guidance Doc. 476)
-
- The Court (Judge Snow) substantially denied Yavapai and Morgans summary judgment (Guidance Doc. 620)
- Guidance Defendants moved (again) for summary judgment in the Guidance (Guidance Doc. 477)
- The Court (Judge Snow) again denied Guidance Defendants summary judgment(Guidance Doc. 620)
- The likelihood of the Court going against the law and its past rulings from the Guidance case in the pending motions for summary judgment in the NorthAire Case is remote.
- The Guidance case will be going to It is highly likely that the Court will try Guidance case concurrently with the NorthAire case.
2. Damages at Trial Could Exceed $ 98,855,857.00+ a. FCA Damages 201303 – 201501 = $97,855,857.00 ($89,770,857.00 + $8,085,000.00)
Payable to United States (not Relator)
Singles = $ 29,932,619.00
- All proceeds from the AVT(HE) and AVT(AI) programs from Fall 2013 through Spring 2015 are the basis for damages. FN1 (See YC 031411) ( Relative to the singles, the total of over $ 8 million is relatively low and completely in-line with constitutional guidelines for penalties.) (In an abundance of caution, Relator limits this valuation to the period of the AVT program through the VA’s suspension of the same. These dollar amounts are subject to increase at least with respect to the claims submitted for NorthAire students because the Court has not limited the scope of those claims to any time period. Moreover, the parties still dispute whether the temporal scope of claims in the Guidance case has been limited to those occurring in or after Fall 2013.)
Treble damages = 3 X $ 29,932,619.00 = $ 89,770,857.00 (Trebling of damages is not discretionary, but mandatory under the FCA.)
Penalties – $ 8,085,000.00 (VA paid on at least 735 claims between 201303 and 201501 (per YC030089-30108). (Penalties are mandatory, not discretionary, under the FCA. As with the dollar damages stated herein, the actual number of claims (and therefore the dollar amount of penalties) may be much higher because the Court has not limited Relator to claims after Fall 2013 in the NorthAire case and the parties dispute whether the scope of claims in the Guidance case predates Fall 2013. Moreover, these penalties could double if the Court were to apply one penalty for each false claim and a separate penalty for each false certification attending each claim.)
$5,500 to $11,000 per false claim (a) @ $ 5,500 = $ 4,042,500.00. @ $11,000 = $ 8,085,000.00. (This number is conservative because it counts each student as only one claim even though YC actually submitted multiple claims on behalf of many, if not most, students each term.)
- Damages for Relator’s personal claims– $ 1,000,000.00+
- Payable to Relator (not United States)
- Backpay – $ 500,000.00
- FCA Double backpay – $ 1,000,000.00
- Other tort, make-whole and punitive damages easily should eclipse the backpay
- Payable to Relator (not United States)
3. Attorneys Fees and Costs
Under the FCA, an award of a successful relator’s attorneys’ fees and costs are mandatory.
Relator has not totaled attorneys’ fees and costs, but expects they will be in the millions of dollars. They will likely be greater than the fees and costs for any single law firm for any Defendant but less than the total Defendants have paid for all the firms representing all Defendants.
Assuming we reach a resolution on the other matters, Relator and his counsel are willing to settle the mandatory award of fees and costs for the lesser of his actual fees/costs incurred or the total amount Defendants have paid all their lawyers to defend this case.
4. Relator’s Willingness to Compromise/Structure
Relator expects to compromise going into settlement However, he is not willing to ignore the very real possibility of judgment in the many tens of millions of dollars.
Attorney Harris wrote that “Relator is grateful Defendants are seriously exploring a path to resolving this case. We hope it is helpful to do so with a clear understanding of the stakes and what risks Yavapai can avoid by settlement. For our part, Relator and undersigned counsel are fully aware of the adverse risks Relator faces and we recognize that the benefits of a negotiated settlement are worth accepting compromise.”