#### Patricia BRAHAM; Tona Kresich; Valerie Evans, as personal representative of Carol Whitehouse, Plaintiffs—Appellants, and State of California; United States of America, Intervenors, v. ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS; Alpine County Superintendent of Schools; Amador County Superintendent of Schools; Butte County Superintendent of Schools; Calaberas County Superintendent of Schools; Colusa County Superintendent of Schools; Contra Costa County Superintendent of Schools, Del Norte County; El Dorado *620County; Fresno County; Glenn County; Humboldt County; Imperial County; Inyo County; Kings County; Lake County; Lassen County; Los Angeles County; Madera County; Marin County; Mariposa County; Mendocino County; Mercerd County; Modoc County; Mono County; Monterey County; Napa County; Nevada County; Orange County; Placer County; Plumas County; Riverside County; Sacramento County; San Benito County; San Francisco County; San Joaquin County; San Luis Obispo County; San Mateo County; Santa Barbara County; Shasta County; Santa Clara County; Santa Cruz County Sierra County; Siskiyou County; Solano County; Sonoma County; Stanislaus County; Sutter County; Tehama County; Trinity County; Tulare County; Tuolumne County; Ventura County; Yolo County; Inyo County; and Yuba County Superintendent of Schools; San Bernardino Superintendent of Schools; San Diego County Office of Education; Riverside County Office of Education; Orange County Department of Education, a public entity; Kern County Superintendent of Schools, (erroneously sued and served as Kern County Office of Education), Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-56780.

D.C. No. CV-01-09193-JFW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

Ellen G. Winterbottom, Newport Beach, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

George D. Prince, DAG, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, Suzanne Claire Nyland, AUSA, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Intervenors.

Dennis Popka, Jeff M. Yoss, Middlebrooke Kaiser *&*Popka, San Bernardino, CA, Christina L. Dyer, Best, Best *&*Krieger, San Diego, CA, Jeffrey P. Thompson, DeClues *&*Burkett, LLP, Huntington Beach, CA, Michael E. Burkett, DeClues *&*Burkett, LLP, Santa Ana, CA, Richard D. Oppenheim, Jr., Sylvester Oppenheim & Linde, Encino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before CANBY, KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 We unanimously find this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

School districts in California, including County Offices of Education, are state agencies. *See Eaglesmith v. Ward,*73 F.3d 857, 860 (9th Cir.1995); *Belanger v. Madera Unified Sch. Dist.,*963 F.2d 248, 254 (9th Cir.1992). State agencies are not “persons” subject to *qui tam*liability under the False Claims Act. *See*31 U.S.C. § 3729(a); *Vt. Agency of Natural Res. v. United States ex rel. Stevens,*529 U.S. 765, 787-88, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the claims.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.