Merced County sued for fraud, etc.

A Sacramento law firm, Somach, Simmons & Dunn (SSD), on Feb. 4 filed a complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court against Merced County and the Merced County Board of Supervisors concerning unpaid bills arising from the Riverside Motorsports Park (RMP) case.
The complaint alleges that Merced County staff, Assistant Planning Director William Nicholson, committed acts of fraud and intentional misrepresentation, fraud and negligent misrepresentation, violation of state Civil Procedures code for levies and unjust enrichment.
SSD is represented by Donald B. Mooney of Davis CA, who is familiar with the operations of Merced County government.
The background facts alleged in the complaint are:
"On August 19, 2008 , the Sacramento County Superior Court granted SSD's Motion for Summary Judgment against Riverside Motorsports Park, LLC, for recovery of the amount due to SSD under a promissory note executed by Riverside Motorsports Park LLC. (Somach Simmons & Dunn, LLP v. Riverside Motorsports Park , LLC, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case No . 07AS0499 1.) The Judgment Granting Motion for Summary Judgment was entered on August 26, 2008.
"On or about August 28 , 2008, SSD caused to be served on Merced County a Writ of Execution (Writ) issued by the Sacramento County Superior Court. The Writ seeks to enforce the Judgment against RMP in the amount of approximately $ 143,000. (A copy of the Writ of Execution is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint.) The letter that accompanied the Writ expressly seeks to attach all monies held by Merced County for RMP and, in particular, "all monies held pursuant to Contract 2008046." (A copy of the letter from SSD that accompanied the Writ is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint.)
"In response to the Writ , on or about September 22, 2008 , Merced County submitted to SSD a Memorandum of Garnishee signed by William Nicholson, Assistant Development Director, Merced County , which states in material part: "The County does not have property in the name of the judgment debtor named on the Writ of Execution." (A copy of the Memorandum of Garnishee is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint .)
"On behalf of Merced County, Mr. Nicholson also responded in the Memorandum of Garnishee: " N/A" to the questions on the memorandum of garnishee regarding whether the County holds any property of the judgment debtor that is not levied upon , and whether any other parties had claims to the property levied upon. Mr. Nicholson signed the memorandum of garnishee under penalty of perjury .
"In response to SSD's September 30, 2008, Public Records Act  request , Merced County provided documentation that indicates that as of September 10, 2008, Merced County held $44,161.52 in the RMP Trust Account under Contract No. 2008046. On or about September 25, 2008, Merced County transferred $44, 161.52 held under Contract No. 2008046  to the County's general fund . (A copy of Explanation of Billing is attached as Exhibit D to this Complaint.) The documentation also evidences that on September 30, 2008, this money was transferred from the Merced County Planning Department to the Merced County Counsel' s office.
"When Mr. Nicholson signed the Memorandum of Garnishee on September 22, 2008, stating under penalty of perjury that the County did not have any property of RMP, Merced County actually held $44 ,161.52 of RMP assets in the RMP Trust Account,
"On or about November 4, 2008, SSD filed a Claim Against the County of Merced seeking $44, 161.52. (A copy of the Claim Against Merced County is attached as Exhibit E to this Complaint.)
"On or about December 19,2008, Merced County sent SSD a Notice of Action on Claim, rejecting the claim. (A copy of the Notice of Action on Claim is attached as Exhibit F to this Complaint.)"

The full complaint, including the causes of action and supporting documents, of Somach, Simmons & Dunn v. Merced County and the Merced County Board of Supervisors is at the following link, provided by the Merced Sun-Star on Feb. 7.
http://media.mercedsunstar.com/smedia/2009/02/06/18/Complaint.source.prod_affiliate.111.pdf