<p><b>GRAYSON v. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO.</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <h5>Filed 8/31/06</h5> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"><u>CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION</u><u></u></p> <br /> <p align="center"><u> </u></p> <br /> <p>COPY</p> <br /> <p align="center">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA</p> <br /> <p align="center">THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT</p> <br /> <p align="center">(Sacramento)</p> <br /> <p align="center">----</p><br /> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="394" valign="top"> <br /> <p>STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. ALAN GRAYSON,</p> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Appellant,</p> <br /> <p> v.</p> <br /> <p>PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE CO. et al.,</p> <br /> <p> Defendants and Respondents.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td width="230" valign="top"> <br /> <p align="center">C050296</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">(Super. Ct. No. 02AS00790)</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table> <br /> <p><b>Continue from Part I ………</b></p> <br /> <p><i>Hansen</i>, <i>supra</i>, 107 F.Supp.2d 1172 provides a second helpful template. <i>Hansen</i> reiterates two <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">fundamental principles</a> enunciated in <i>Findley</i>: that is, that a <i>qui tam</i> complaint is â€