What is the California False Claims Act (CFCA)?

Useful Rulings on California False Claims Act (CFCA)

Recent Rulings on California False Claims Act (CFCA)

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

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ABRAHAM LOPEZ VS AVITUS, INC., ET AL.

Murillo’s Demurer and Motion to Strike First Cause of Action: California False Claims Act a) Joint Employer: Murillo states that Lopez has failed to allege that he was their employee. Murillo argues that Lopez has lumped it in with the other defendants and fails to distinguish between them. The Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to sufficiently allege the employment relationship.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JESSE ARVIZU VS PARTNERSHIPS TO UPLIFT COMMUNITIES SCHOOLS E

Respondent cites cases that held charter schools are not public entities for purposes of the California False Claims Act, the Tort Claims Act, and Labor Code section 220(b). (See, e.g., Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal.4th 1164, 1200 [holding that charter schools and corporate charter operators were not “public entities” under the California False Claims Act]; Knapp v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAVE THE VALLEY LLC VS CHUMASH CASINO AND RESORT ENTERPRISES ET AL

Motion: The remaining individual defendants (hereafter “defendants”) move for their attorney fees under the California False Claims Act (“FCA”).

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ANDRES ALEJANDRO MERCADO V. SECURITY INDUSTRY SPECIALISTS, 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

    Mar 06, 2020

MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC

Williams’s Whistleblower Retaliation Claim LBUSD argues Williams’s claim for whistleblower retaliation under California’s False Claims Act, Government Code section 12653, fails because (1) Williams was not an employee, contractor, or agent of LBUSD, and (2) the contracting entity, MWL, cannot establish the required elements of protected activity, notice to LBUSD, and causation.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

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

The Court finds no basis to impose a stricter standard with regard to PAGA claims, particularly considering the False Claims Act authorities noted above. Indeed, the court of appeal has observed in this very case that the standing requirements in qui tam actions are typically more generous than in other types of cases. (See Huff v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 28, 2020

RICARDO P PEREZ VS M B WELDING

. _____________________________________________ The following is the Court's tentative decision concerning the motion of plaintiff intervenor, City of Santa Paula ("City") to dismiss this False Claims Act Action: The Court GRANTS City's motion to dismiss this qui tam False Claims Act Action. The Court declines to consider the late opposition/objection filed by Ricardo P. Perez.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RICARDO P PEREZ MBA BA CPPB SCM VS. CITY OF SANTA PAULA

Section 905.2, subdivision (h), does not expressly state that whistleblower claims made pursuant to the False Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 12653) are exempt from the claims presentation requirements of the GCA. The Legislature is presumed to have intended this omission to be exclusionary; that is, the Court must presume the Legislature intended to exclude claims under the False Claims Act to not be exempt from the claims presentation requirements of the GCA.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

RICARDO P PEREZ MBA BA CPPB SCM VS. CITY OF SANTA PAULA

Section 905.2, subdivision (h), does not expressly state that whistleblower claims made pursuant to the False Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 12653) are exempt from the claims presentation requirements of the GCA. The Legislature is presumed to have intended this omission to be exclusionary; that is, the Court must presume the Legislature intended to exclude claims under the False Claims Act to not be exempt from the claims presentation requirements of the GCA.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SAVE THE VALLEY LLC VS CHUMASH CASINO AND RESORT ENTERPRISES ET AL

STV brings the action under the California False Claims Act (Gov’t Code §§ 12650-12656). Subsequently, STV added another individual as defendant Doe 1. STV alleges: An Assistant United States Attorney said at a February 6, 2018, oral argument before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the United States of America owns the 75 acre parcel of land on which sits the Chumash Casino and Hotel in “fee simple title.”

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

ESTEBAN PALOMINO V. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORP., ET AL.

Footnote 2: This is in contrast to the other major qui tam statute in California, the False Claims Act. (See Gov’t Code § 12652(c)(10); Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (N.D. Cal., May 23, 2018, No. 13-CV-03598-BLF) 2018 WL 2331877, at *7; Gonzalez v. Corecivic of Tennessee, LLC (E.D. Cal., Aug. 1, 2018, No. 16-CV-01891-DAD- JLT) 2018 WL 3689564, at *4 [contrasting PAGA with federal False Claims Act].)

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

TINA MITHAIWALA VS JANNKI MITHAIWALA

City Action On April 21, 2011, the City of Los Angeles (“City”) commenced an action in Los Angeles Superior Court against Jannki, Ajit, and others for violations of the False Claims Act (“City Action”). In May 2011, the City obtained an order for the appointment of the Receiver in the City Action to manage those same assets in the City Action.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

SAVE THE VALLEY LLC VS CHUMASH CASINO AND RESORT ENTERPRISES ET AL

The complaint sets forth one cause of action for violation of the California False Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 12650 et seq.). The complaint was filed under seal pending determination by the State of California to intervene as provided in Government Code section 12652, subdivision (c). On August 28, 2019, the court entered its order that the Attorney General elected to decline intervention and that the seal is lifted as to all documents in the court’s file.

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2019

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

BARDOT V. EUROLUX, LLC

Lionsgate Corp. (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 741, 752 [arbitrator’s award under False Claims Act entitled plaintiff to prejudgment interest]; Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., supra, 174 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1009-1011 [prejudgment interest award under Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act even though the statute is silent as to prejudgment interest].) Prejudgment interest may not be awarded if the statute implicitly precludes an award of prejudgment interest. (Imperial Merchant Services, Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 05, 2019

CITY OF INDIUSTRY VS SAN GABRIEL VALLEY WATER AND POWER, LLC, ET AL.

Gov’t Code §§12650 et seq.; Intentional Misrepresentation; Breach of Contract; Breach of Convent of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Unfair Business Practices, Business and Profession Code §§ 17200 et seq.; Declaratory Relief. On April 29, 2019, SGVWP filed a Cross-Complaint against Industry for: Breach of Contract; Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; Declaratory Relief. Industry brings this opposed Demurrer to SGVWP’s Cross-Complaint.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

MURIEL V. NEXTGEN LABORATORIES, INC.

., Complaint, at ¶16 (Plaintiff complained of violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute and parallel state laws in the claims and billing process to Medicare).

  • Hearing

    Nov 14, 2019

ROCCO V. SAP SE

Third Cause of Action for Violations of (California) False Claims Act –– Retention of Proceeds As to Deliotte In the absence of an underlying violation of the CFCA there were no improperly received proceeds to retain. As to SAP In the absence of an underlying violation of the CFCA there were no improperly received proceeds to retain.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2019

PAUL HANCOCK V. MAGNOLIA HI-FI, 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

    Oct 25, 2019

TINA MITHAIWALA VS JANNKI MITHAIWALA

Conversion of Funds re: City Litigation In April 2011, the City of Los Angeles commenced an action in Los Angeles Superior Court against ADI, PHD, and the parties seeking relief under the False Claims Act (“City Litigation”).

  • Hearing

    Oct 18, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL VS. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP

The TAC alleges: Specifically, AT&T has failed to retain, in a usable format, invoices or the equivalent granular billing and usage data for False Claims Act Intervenors and CSU, and both AT&T and VERIZON have failed to maintain reports relevant to the lowest cost available and optimization provisions in the Nevada WSCA I Contract and the Nevada WSCA II Contract for False Claims Act Intervenors and CSU . . . . (TAC ¶ 222 (emphasis added).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL VS. CELLCO PARTNERSHIP

The TAC alleges: Specifically, AT&T has failed to retain, in a usable format, invoices or the equivalent granular billing and usage data for False Claims Act Intervenors and CSU, and both AT&T and VERIZON have failed to maintain reports relevant to the lowest cost available and optimization provisions in the Nevada WSCA I Contract and the Nevada WSCA II Contract for False Claims Act Intervenors and CSU . . . . (TAC ¶ 222 (emphasis added).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 26, 2019

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ROCCO V. SAP SE

Fourth Cause of Action for Violation of False Claims Act – Retention of Proceeds (against both Deloitte and SAP) The CFCA includes, as a violation of the statute, the retention of proceeds from a false claim. Govt. Code § 12651(a)(8). In the absence of an underlying violation of the CFCA, however, there were no improperly received proceeds to retain.

  • Hearing

    Jun 10, 2019

JUSTIN SCHEIBER V. SHOE PALACE CORPORATION, ET AL.

Footnote 6: 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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2019

JUAN VASQUEZ V. LE BOULANGER, 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.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2019

1 2 3 4 5 6     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.