{"id":77,"date":"2026-04-02T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-04-02T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=77"},"modified":"2026-04-02T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-04-02T12:00:00","slug":"albarghouti-la-gateway-partners-cfca-seal-lifts-automatically-60-days","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=77","title":{"rendered":"Albarghouti v. LA Gateway Partners \u2014 California False Claims Act Seal Lifts Automatically After 60 Days Absent Extension"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Albarghouti v. LA Gateway Partners, LLC<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-04-02<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B333058<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
California False Claims Act; qui tam; seal procedures; demurrer; Government Code section 12650<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Jamal Albarghouti filed a qui tam complaint against LA Gateway Partners and PCL Construction Services under the California False Claims Act, alleging the defendants submitted false claims to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and Los Angeles World Airports in connection with LAX construction projects. A qui tam suit allows a private person, called a relator, to sue on the government’s behalf and share in any recovery.<\/p>\n

The CFCA requires a relator to file the complaint under seal in camera and mail a copy to the Attorney General. The Attorney General and any local prosecuting authorities have 60 days to decide whether to take over the case. The relator may not serve the defendant while the complaint is sealed.<\/p>\n

Albarghouti filed his complaint and mailed it to the Attorney General on May 27, 2022. The seal he listed on the cover sheet was set to expire 60 days later. Neither the Attorney General nor any local authorities requested an extension or notified the court whether they would intervene. The clerk issued the summons two days after the listed expiration, and Albarghouti served the defendants thereafter. The defendants demurred, arguing he had violated the CFCA’s seal and service rules. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Second District Court of Appeal, Division Three, reversed and remanded. The court held that the CFCA creates a 60-day default sealing period and that the seal lifts automatically once that period expires unless the government has requested an extension. A relator who waits out the 60 days without government action is free to lift the seal and serve the defendant.<\/p>\n

Equally importantly, the court held that even if a relator had violated the seal and service rules, those violations would not provide grounds for a demurrer or for automatic dismissal of the underlying false claims case. The CFCA’s pleading requirements do not include allegations of compliance with the seal procedures. A demurrer tests only whether the complaint states a cause of action; procedural missteps in the seal process must be addressed through other procedural mechanisms, with dismissal reserved for cases of significant prejudice to the government’s interests.<\/p>\n

Because Albarghouti complied with the statute by filing in camera, mailing the complaint to the Attorney General, and waiting until after the 60-day period expired to serve, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n