What is the California False Claims Act (CFCA)?

Useful Rulings on California False Claims Act (CFCA)

Recent Rulings on California False Claims Act (CFCA)

DUAL DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT CENTER VS. HEALTH NET, INC., ET AL

In Armenta, the qui tam plaintiff and government both brought action under the False Claims Act against manufacturers of water distribution parts used in municipal water systems.

  • Hearing

NICHOLAS ROBINSON V. INTER-CON SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.

., Aug. 1, 2018, No. 16-CV-01891-DAD- JLT) 2018 WL 3689564, at *4 (contrasting PAGA with federal False Claims Act).

  • Hearing

MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC

One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1164, 1190, wherein the Supreme Court held that a public school district is not a “person” for purposes of the False Claims Act. MWL’s reply is completely silent on this issue, thus appearing to concede that it cannot recover fees against LBUSD under the False Claims Act. Thus, even if there were a proper §998 offer and acceptance, MWL could not recover its attorneys’ fees against LBUSD.

  • Hearing

VIJAYALAKSHMI KANNA V. TRANZEAL, INC., ET AL.

This is consistent with the observation of many courts that PAGA claims are analogous to “qui tam” suits like those under the federal False Claims Act: in reviewing settlements of qui tam claims, courts do consider any associated attorney fee arrangement. (See U.S. v. Texas Instruments Corp. (9th Cir. 1994) 25 F.3d 725, 728 [attorney fee award must be considered by the trial court as part of its review of the “entire settlement arrangement”].)

  • Hearing

ALBERT RAMOS V. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., ET AL.

This is consistent with the observation of many courts that PAGA claims are analogous to “qui tam” suits like those under the federal False Claims Act: in reviewing settlements of qui tam claims, courts do consider any associated attorney fee arrangement. (See U.S. v. Texas Instruments Corp. (9th Cir. 1994) 25 F.3d 725, 728 [attorney fee award must be considered by the trial court as part of its review of the “entire settlement arrangement”].)

  • Hearing

ADAM WRIGHT V. SF MARKETS, LLC, ET AL.

This is consistent with the observation of many courts that PAGA claims are analogous to “qui tam” suits like those under the federal False Claims Act: in reviewing settlements of qui tam claims, courts do consider any associated attorney fee arrangement. (See U.S. v. Texas Instruments Corp. (9th Cir. 1994) 25 F.3d 725, 728 [attorney fee award must be considered by the trial court as part of its review of the “entire settlement arrangement”].)

  • Hearing

CLAUDIA RUBIO VS AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DRAMATIC ARTS, ET AL.

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) retaliation in violation of the False Claims Act, (2) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (8) defamation / slander, (9) violation of the California Family Rights Act, (10) retaliation

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CLAUDIA RUBIO VS AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DRAMATIC ARTS, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) retaliation in violation of the False Claims Act, (2) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (8) defamation / slander, (9) violation of the California Family Rights Act, and (

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CLAUDIA RUBIO VS AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DRAMATIC ARTS, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) retaliation in violation of the False Claims Act, (2) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (8) defamation / slander, (9) violation of the California Family Rights Act, and (

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS VIKRAM J. SINGH, M.D., ET AL.

In the similar context of qui tam actions brought under the California False Claims Act, allegations in a complaint "sounding in fraud . . . must be pleaded with particularity." (State ex rel. McCann v. Bank of America, N.A. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 897, 906.) "The complaint must plead the time, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby." (Ibid., internal quotation marks omitted.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

DAVID WHITCROFT VS BEN MACPERSON, ET AL.

Sareen (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1405, 1423 (employee’s email was extortion as a matter of law where he threatened to expose former employer to federal authorities for alleged violations of the False Claims Act which were “entirely unrelated to any alleged injury suffered by employee” unless employer negotiated a settlement of employee's defamation and wrongful termination claims). As emphasized in Malin v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS CHANG HWAN PARK ET AL

In McCann, the Court of Appeal stated that fraud was the required pleading specificity for a CFCA cause of action, “ “ as in any action sounding in fraud.”” (Id.; quoting City of Pomona v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 793, 803.) As such, a Plaintiff is required to plead the “time, place, and contents of the false representations, as well as the identity of the person making the misrepresentation and what he obtained thereby.”” (Id.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

CLAUDIA RUBIO VS AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DRAMATIC ARTS, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) retaliation in violation of the False Claims Act, (2) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (8) defamation / slander, (9) violation of the California Family Rights Act, and (

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CLAUDIA RUBIO VS AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DRAMATIC ARTS, ET AL.

The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) retaliation in violation of the False Claims Act, (2) violation of Labor Code section 1102.5, (3) retaliation in violation of FEHA, (4) failure to accommodate in violation of FEHA, (5) failure to engage in the interactive process in violation of FEHA, (6) failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation in violation of FEHA, (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy, (8) defamation / slander, (9) violation of the California Family Rights Act, and (

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

CHI LAM M.D. TARGET BENEFIT PLAN VS JOHN R. EDWARDS, ET AL.

Plaintiff also presents evidence that: (1) Defendants decided to settle the False Claims Act litigation for $42 million in order to avoid the delay, uncertainty of protracted litigation (Plaintiff’s Compendium of Exhibits at Exhibit C); (2) Plaintiff has not received all monies from the Care 1st sale because some distributions continue to be held back (Id., Exhibit G at 17:20-18:25, 112:18-19, 127:12-16, 132:1-3, 143:15-19, 155:14-15); (3) Edwards testified that some of the False Claims settlement funds came

  • Hearing

MINAKO AMERICA CORPORATION VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

On March 02, 2018, the County filed a cross-complaint against Minco and NPC, alleging (i) breach of contract, (ii) violation of the False Claims Act, (iii) violation of the False Advertising Laws, (iv) breach of contract warranties, and (v) breach of implied warranties. On April 18, 2018, NPC filed a Motion to Change Venue, requesting that the case be transferred outside County because of concerns about “bias associated with COUNTY trying its Cross-Complaint before a jury of local COUNTY taxpayers.”

  • Hearing

ZHENG V. ZHENG

The first cause of action is for Violation of California False Claims Act (Gov. Code, §§ 12650-12656), and the second cause of action is for Violation of Federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733).

  • Hearing

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; LOS ANGELES METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ET AL. VS NEW FLYER OF AMERICA, INC.

Employment Plan (Gov’t Code § 12650 et seq.; § 12651(a)(1)); Second Cause of Action: Making and Using False Records and Statements Material to False Claims (Gov’t Code § 12650 et seq.; § 12651(a)(2)); Third Cause of Action: Failure to Disclose False Claims (Gov’t Code § 12650 et seq.; § 12651(a)(8)). Plaintiff brings this complaint under the California False Claims Act (Govt. Code §12650, et seq.) (“CFCA”).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

FORREST HUFF V. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., ET AL.

Thus, the federal authorities’ characterization of the False Claims Act as a remedial rather than a penal statute does not impact this Court’s analysis. Still, the federal consensus that actions under the False Claims Act survive the relator’s death bolsters the conclusion that the representative nature of a PAGA claim does not render it unable to survive the plaintiff’s death. For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s representative may continue this action on plaintiff’s behalf.

  • Hearing

KAREN CRUZ V. ISLAND HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT III LLC, ET AL.

This is consistent with the observation of many courts that PAGA claims are analogous to “qui tam” suits like those under the federal False Claims Act: in reviewing settlements of qui tam claims, courts do consider any associated attorney fee arrangement. (See U.S. v. Texas Instruments Corp. (9th Cir. 1994) 25 F.3d 725, 728 [attorney fee award must be considered by the trial court as part of its review of the “entire settlement arrangement”].)

  • Hearing

HIRIJONO SOENARDI, ET AL. V. MAGNUSSEN IMPORTS, INC., ET AL.

This is consistent with the observation of many courts that PAGA claims are analogous to “qui tam” suits like those under the federal False Claims Act: in reviewing settlements of qui tam claims, courts do consider any associated attorney fee arrangement. (See U.S. v. Texas Instruments Corp. (9th Cir. 1994) 25 F.3d 725, 728 [attorney fee award must be considered by the trial court as part of its review of the “entire settlement arrangement”].)

  • Hearing

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA, EX REL. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. VS. RUBIN, M.D.

But as Defendants point out in both their opening papers and their reply, additional allegations are not enough to avoid the first-to-file bar, either under state law (see Metz, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 420) or under federal cases interpreting the False Claims Act, which the parties both cite as persuasive for purposes of interpreting § 1871.7. (See United States ex. rel. Branch Consultants v. Allstate Ins.

  • Hearing

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ET AL VS BRUCE FISHMAN, M.D.

Defendants argue that the sole remaining cause of action, for violation of the California False Claims Act, is barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel. This Court agrees. The doctrine [of res judicata] is applicable “if (1) the decision in the prior proceeding is final and on the merits; (2) the present proceeding is on the same cause of action as the prior proceeding; and (3) the parties in the present proceeding or parties in privity with them were parties to the prior proceeding.”

  • Hearing

KURT AUTREY V. LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, ET AL.

This is consistent with the observation of many courts that PAGA claims are analogous to “qui tam” suits like those under the federal False Claims Act: in reviewing settlements of qui tam claims, courts do consider any associated attorney fee arrangement. (See U.S. v. Texas Instruments Corp. (9th Cir. 1994) 25 F.3d 725, 728 [attorney fee award must be considered by the trial court as part of its review of the “entire settlement arrangement”].)

  • Hearing

ALFARO VS WHEEL PROS LLC

Claims Act, ERISA, except claims excluded in the section of this Agreement entitled "Claims Not Covered."

  • Hearing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.