Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04632/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04632-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID

TRANSIT DISTRICT,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 WILLIAM D. SPENCER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04632 SI

SPECIAL VERDICT

We, the jury in the above entitled action, find unanimously as follows for our special verdict:

///

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 328 Filed 02/14/07 Page 1 of 7
ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AS TO DEFENDANT WILLIAM D. SPENCER:

Question No. 1: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant William D. Spencer violated Subsection (1) of the California False Claims

Act? Yes _______ No _______

Question No. 2: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant William D. Spencer violated Subsection (2) of the California False Claims

Act? Yes _______ No _______

Question No. 3: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant William D. Spencer violated Subsection (3) of the California False Claims

Act? Yes _______ No _______

If your answers to Questions 1, 2 and 3 were all “No,” please go to Question No. 5 . Otherwise, please

answer the next question:

Question No. 4: For how many of the 97 progress payment applications did BART prove that William

D. Spencer is liable under one or more of these Subsections? ________________ (number)

Please answer the next question.

///

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 328 Filed 02/14/07 Page 2 of 7
ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AS TO DEFENDANT WILLIAM McGAHAN:

Question No. 5: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant William McGahan violated Subsection (1) of the California False Claims

Act? Yes _______ No _______

Question No. 6: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant William McGahan violated Subsection (2) of the California False Claims

Act? Yes _______ No _______

Question No. 7: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant William McGahan violated Subsection (3) of the California False Claims

Act? Yes _______ No _______

If your answers to Questions 5, 6, and 7 were all “No,” please go to Question No. 9. Otherwise, please

answer the next question:

Question No. 8: For how many of the 97 progress payment applications did BART prove that William

McGahan is liable under one or more of these Subsections? ________________ (number)

Please answer the next question.

///

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 328 Filed 02/14/07 Page 3 of 7
ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AS TO DEFENDANT BRUCE R. BONAR:

Question No. 9: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant Bruce R. Bonar violated Subsection (1) of the California False Claims Act?

Yes _______ No _______

Question No. 10: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant Bruce R. Bonar violated Subsection (2) of the California False Claims Act?

Yes _______ No _______

Question No. 11: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant Bruce R. Bonar violated Subsection (3) of the California False Claims Act?

Yes _______ No _______

If your answers to Questions 9, 10, and 11 were all “No,” please go to Question No. 13 . Otherwise,

please answer the next question:

Question No. 12: For how many of the 97 progress payment applications did BART prove that Bruce

R. Bonar is liable under one or more of these Subsections? ________________ (number)

Please answer the next question.

///

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 328 Filed 02/14/07 Page 4 of 7
ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AS TO DEFENDANT F. W. SPENCER & SON, INC.:

Question No. 13: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant F. W. Spencer & Son, Inc. violated Subsection (1) of the California False

Claims Act? Yes _______ No _______

Question No. 14: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant F. W. Spencer & Son, Inc violated Subsection (2) of the California False

Claims Act? Yes _______ No _______

If your answers to Questions 13 and 14 were both “No,” please go to Question No. 16 . Otherwise,

please answer the next question:

Question No. 15: For how many of the 97 progress payment applications did BART prove that F. W.

Spencer& Son, Inc is liable under one or more of these Subsections? ________________ (number)

Please answer the next question.

///

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 328 Filed 02/14/07 Page 5 of 7
ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

AS TO DEFENDANT BRISBANE MECHANICAL CO..:

Question No. 16: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant Brisbane Mechanical Co. violated Subsection (1) of the California False

Claims Act? Yes _______ No _______

Question No. 17: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, all of the elements required to

demonstrate that defendant Brisbane Mechanical Co. violated Subsection (2) of the California False

Claims Act? Yes _______ No _______

If your answers to Questions 16 and 17 were both “No,” please go to Question No. 19 . Otherwise,

please answer the next question:

Question No. 18: For how many of the 97 progress payment applications did BART prove that Brisbane

Mechanical Co. is liable under one or more of these Subsections? ________________ (number)

If you did not answer any of the preceding questions “Yes,” then do not answer any further questions;

instead, please go to the end of this form, sign and date it where indicated, and inform the Court that you

have reached a verdict. Otherwise, please answer the next question.

///

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 328 Filed 02/14/07 Page 6 of 7
ForUnited States Distr the Northern District Court ict of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

OTHER DAMAGES:

Question No. 19: Did BART prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the violation(s) of the

California False Claims Act by any defendant caused BART damages as defined in the instructions?

Yes _______ No _______

Question No. 20: If your answer to Question 19 was “Yes,” what is the amount of damages BART

proved? __________________________

Please answer the following questions:

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS:

Question No. 21 Did defendants prove, by a preponderance ofthe evidence, that BART knew or should

have known of the fraudulent or false nature of defendants’ acts, before November 1, 2001?

Yes _______ No _______

Question No. 22: Did plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendants fraudulently

concealed the fraudulent or false nature of their acts, so that BART, even acting reasonably, did not

know of the fraudulent or false nature of defendants’ acts before November 1, 2001?

Yes _______ No _______

LACHES:

Question No. 23 Did defendants prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that BART delayed

bringing this action for an unreasonable length of time and that defendants were prejudiced by the delay

in bringing this action?

Yes _______ No _______

Dated: __________________________

FOREPERSON

Case 3:04-cv-04632-SI Document 328 Filed 02/14/07 Page 7 of 7