California False Claims Act (CFCA)

Guthrie are immune from prosecution for false claims brought under section 12651, Plaintiff cannot assert that his actions were in furtherance of a claim under the False Claims Act. Second Cause of Action for Violation of Government Code Section 12653 The California False Claims Act (CFCA) prohibits a “person” from defrauding the government of money, property, or services by submitting to the government a “false or fraudulent claim” for payment. (Gov. Code § 12650, et seq.)

Claims Act (“CFCA”) at Government Code, § 12650, et seq. has been brought by Plaintiff Jason Hunter in a representative capacity on behalf of the public.

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”).

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”).

California False Claims Act Liability The CFCA permits recovery of civil penalties and treble damages from a person who "knowingly presents or causes to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval," or "knowingly makes, uses, or causes to be made or used a false record or statement material to a false or fraudulent claim." (Gov.C.§12651(a).)

RETALIATION California’s False Claims Act allows civil actions (and treble damages) against any person who “[k]nowingly presents or causes to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” (Gov. Code § 12651, subd. (a)(1)), with “claim” defined as a request or demand for money, property, or services “presented to an officer, employee, or agent of the state or of a political subdivision.” (Gov. Code § 12650, subd. (b)(1)(A).)

Based on these allegations, the County asserts thirteen causes of action for: (1) California Government Code sections 1090 and 1092; (2) declaratory relief; (3) violation of the California False Claims Act, Cal. Government Code section 12651, subdivision (a)(1); (4) violation of the California False Claims Act, Cal. Government Code section 12651, subdivision (a)(2); (5) violation of the California False Claims Act, Cal.

Violation of the Federal False Claims Act and the California False Claims Act 1. Legal Standard a. The Federal False Claims Act Liability for certain acts. (1) In general.

Violation of the Federal False Claims Act and the California False Claims Act 1. Legal Standard a. The Federal False Claims Act Liability for certain acts. (1) In general.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the California False Claims Act, Government Code sections 12651(a)(1), (2), and (a)(8) ("CFCA"), and Plaintiff's rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code sections 51 and 52 ("Unruh Act") by, including but not limited to, delivering a website inaccessible to people with disabilities. MOTION #1. PROCEDURE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICAL NOTICE On 1/8/18, plaintiff filed this case. On 6/10/21 plaintiff filed the 3AC, which added defendant eDirect.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the California False Claims Act, Government Code sections 12651(a)(1), (2), and (a)(8) ("CFCA"), and Plaintiff's rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code sections 51 and 52 ("Unruh Act") by, including but not limited to, delivering a website inaccessible to people with disabilities. MOTION #1. PROCEDURE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICAL NOTICE On 1/8/18, plaintiff filed this case. On 6/10/21 plaintiff filed the 3AC, which added defendant eDirect.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the California False Claims Act, Government Code sections 12651(a)(1), (2), and (a)(8) ("CFCA"), and Plaintiff's rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code sections 51 and 52 ("Unruh Act") by, including but not limited to, delivering a website inaccessible to people with disabilities. MOTION #1. PROCEDURE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICAL NOTICE On 1/8/18, plaintiff filed this case. On 6/10/21 plaintiff filed the 3AC, which added defendant eDirect.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the California False Claims Act, Government Code sections 12651(a)(1), (2), and (a)(8) ("CFCA"), and Plaintiff's rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code sections 51 and 52 ("Unruh Act") by, including but not limited to, delivering a website inaccessible to people with disabilities. MOTION #1. PROCEDURE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICAL NOTICE On 1/8/18, plaintiff filed this case. On 6/10/21 plaintiff filed the 3AC, which added defendant eDirect.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the California False Claims Act, Government Code sections 12651(a)(1), (2), and (a)(8) ("CFCA"), and Plaintiff's rights under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civil Code sections 51 and 52 ("Unruh Act") by, including but not limited to, delivering a website inaccessible to people with disabilities. MOTION #1. PROCEDURE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICAL NOTICE On 1/8/18, plaintiff filed this case. On 6/10/21 plaintiff filed the 3AC, which added defendant eDirect.

The False Claims Act makes it unlawful to knowingly conceal or knowingly and improperly avoid or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to a government agency (Gov. Code § 12651(a)(7).) The Act also makes it unlawful for anyone who “has possession, custody or control of public property or money used or to be used . . . by any political subdivision and knowingly delivers or causes to be delivered less than all of that property.” (Gov. Code § 12651(a)(4).)

The SAC alleges five causes of action: (1) Violation of the California False Claims Act California Government Code § 12651(a)(1) (On behalf of Government Plaintiffs and Qui Tam Plaintiff against All Defendants) (2) Making False Records and Statements in Violation of the California False Claims Act California Government Code § 12651(a)(2) (On behalf of Government Plaintiffs and Qui Tam Plaintiff against All Defendants) (3) Unfair Business Practices California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.

Discussion The California False Claims Act prohibits persons from defrauding the government by submitting false claims for payment or false statements to avoid certain obligations to pay. (Gov. Code, § 12651.) The Act authorizes “qui tam” plaintiffs to enforce the claims of the State or a “political subdivision,” including cities.

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).

Although the Court's decision in Wells found that public school districts were not "persons" who could be sued for submitting false claims under the California False Claims Act ("CFCA"), its conclusion is distinguishable. That decision was driven by the CFCA's language and its purpose to protect the public fisc.

Overview Plaintiff brings this complaint under the California False Claims Act (Govt. Code §12650, et seq.) (CFCA). The CFCA authorizes private parties with knowledge of past or present fraud on the State to sue on the governments behalf to recover civil penalties and damages. The Legislature designed the CFCA to prevent fraud on the public treasury, and it should be given the broadest possible construction consistent with that purpose.

The SAC alleges five causes of action: (1) Violation of the California False Claims Act California Government Code § 12651(a)(1) (On behalf of Government Plaintiffs and Qui Tam Plaintiff against All Defendants) (2) Making False Records and Statements in Violation of the California False Claims Act California Government Code § 12651(a)(2) (On behalf of Government Plaintiffs and Qui Tam Plaintiff against All Defendants) (3) Unfair Business Practices California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.

(Government Code section 12651(f).) The Court cannot assume the legislature made a mistake and broaden its plain and unambiguous exception to include the San Francisco Business and Tax Regulations Code. Additionally, in surreply, Defendant contends that tax liability is not an Obligation that arises from statute or regulation. (Government Code section 12650(b)(5).) Even if the procedural defects of surreplies are ignored, this argument fails on its merits, at least at the demurrer stage.

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY PAUL CVRI2205666 VS DESANTIS EARLY Tentative Ruling: This action for recovery under the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”) at Government Code, § 12650, et seq. has been brought by Plaintiff Jason Hunter in a representative capacity on behalf of the public.

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY PAUL CVRI2205666 VS DESANTIS EARLY Tentative Ruling: This action for recovery under the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”) at Government Code, § 12650, et seq. has been brought by Plaintiff Jason Hunter in a representative capacity on behalf of the public.

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY PAUL CVRI2205666 VS DESANTIS EARLY Tentative Ruling: This action for recovery under the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”) at Government Code, § 12650, et seq. has been brought by Plaintiff Jason Hunter in a representative capacity on behalf of the public.

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BY PAUL CVRI2205666 VS DESANTIS EARLY Tentative Ruling: This action for recovery under the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”) at Government Code, § 12650, et seq. has been brought by Plaintiff Jason Hunter in a representative capacity on behalf of the public.

McCann was a case brought under the California False Claims Act and is expressly based on the nature of an action under the California False Claims Act (CFCA). As the Court in McCann explained: The CFCA is intended to supplement governmental efforts to identify and prosecute fraudulent claims made against state and local governmental entities. [Citation.] ( Rothschild v. Tyco Internat. (US), Inc . (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 488, 494 [99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 721] ( Rothschild ).)

Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 713, the court held “that a transit district board of directors and inspector general were not immune from individual liability under Government Code section 820.2 in a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit the plaintiff brought under the California False Claims Act” [i.e. Government Code section 12653].” (Opposition, p. 9:3-11 [citing Southern California Rapid Transit Dist., supra, at p. 726].) Similarly, in Conn v.

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).

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).)

McCann was a case brought under the California False Claims Act and is expressly based on the nature of an action under the California False Claims Act (CFCA). As the Court in McCann explained: The CFCA is intended to supplement governmental efforts to identify and prosecute fraudulent claims made against state and local governmental entities. [Citation.] ( Rothschild v. Tyco Internat. (US), Inc . (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 488, 494 [99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 721] ( Rothschild ).)

Legal Analysis The California False Claims Act ("FCA" or "the Act"), set forth in Government Code sections 12650 through 12655, is intended to "'supplement governmental efforts to identify and prosecute fraudulent claims made against state and local governmental entities.'" American Contract Services v. Allied Mold & Die, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 854, 858; see Rothschild v. Tyco Int'l (US), Inc. (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 488, 494.

Grant Joint Union High School Dist. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1378, 1384) “The [California False Claims Act] CFCA is modeled on the federal False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. FFCA; Standard Elevator, supra, 197 Cal.App.4th at p. 973, 130 Cal.Rptr.3d 99), and has comparable protection for whistleblowers.” (McVeigh v. Recology San Francisco (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 443, 455.)

Discussion First C/A (False Claims Act) The California False Claims Act prohibits persons from defrauding the government by submitting false claims for payment or false statements to avoid certain obligations to pay. (Gov. Code, § 12651.) The Act authorizes “qui tam” plaintiffs to enforce the claims of the State or a “political subdivision,” including cities.

Plaintiff fails to state a claim because there is no showing of a false claim by the Board, or one that the state was not aware; the Board is not a proper defendant; and plaintiff failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the False Claims Act. (Government Code sections 12650 - 12652.) No reasonable probability that defects can be cured by amendment. =(302/CWW)

The owner filed a cross-complaint alleging violations of the California False Claims Act (CFCA). Relator argues that the case is analogous and encourages the court to implicate the public-disclosure bar of INS § 1871.7(h)(2) only if (1) there has been a disclosure in a public fashion and (2) if the disclosure came from a criminal, civil, or administrative hearing in a legislative or administrative report, hearing, audit or investigation. (Opposition Papers, 5:6-11.)

In City of Pomona , the Court held As in any action sounding in fraud, the allegations of a federal False Claims Act complaint must be pleaded with particularity. ( Id . at 803.) McCann was a case brought under the California False Claims Act, and quoted City of Pomona in applying a heightened pleading standard to the False Claims Act cause of action. ( McCann , supra , 191 Cal.App.4th 906.)

Here, Plaintiff's opposition alleges that the qui tam claim is based on the California False Claims Act (Government Code § 12650 et seq.). See also complaint, ¶¶ 59-60, 93, 97, 100, and 113. The Act permits the recovery of civil penalties and treble damages from any person who knowingly presents a false claim for payment to the state or a political subdivision. San Francisco Unified School Dist. ex rel. Contreras v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 438, 441.

IV. 5 th cause of action for violation of CA False Claims Act—OVERRULE The California False Claims Act permits the recovery of civil penalties and treble damages from any person who “knowingly presents or causes to be presented [to the state or any political subdivision] ... a false claim for payment or approval.” Gov. C. §12651(a)(1). The word “person” “includes any ... corporation [or] business ....” Gov. C. §12650 (b)(9).

Based on these allegations, the County asserts thirteen causes of action for: (1) California Government Code sections 1090 and 1092; (2) declaratory relief; (3) violation of the California False Claims Act, Cal. Government Code section 12651, subdivision (a)(l); (4) violation of the California False Claims Act, Cal. Government Code section 12651, subdivision (a)(2); (5) violation of the California False Claims Act, Cal.

Plaintiffs argue that damages are not a necessary element under the False Claims Act, relying on the Court's Order of November 2, 2020. Damages are, however, still recoverable as a remedy for violations of the False Claims Act. (Gov. Code § 12652(a).) In fact, the Third Amended Complaint asserts a right to recover damages as a remedy for Defendants' violations of the False Claims Act. (Third Am. Compl. [filed Apt. 16, 2018] at p.29 [Prayer for Relief ¶ 1].)

Plaintiffs argue that damages are not a necessary element under the False Claims Act, relying on the Court's Order of November 2, 2020. Damages are, however, still recoverable as a remedy for violations of the False Claims Act. (Gov. Code § 12652(a).) In fact, the Third Amended Complaint asserts a right to recover damages as a remedy for Defendants' violations of the False Claims Act. (Third Am. Compl. [filed Apt. 16, 2018] at p.29 [Prayer for Relief ¶ 1].)

As to the Gov't Code §12653 cause of action, neither defendants Fontes nor Gonzales can be liable under the False Claims Act for acts taken in their official capacity. State ex rel Docstader v. Hambry, (2008) 162 Cal. App 4th 480. There are no allegations that either submitted or handled any false claims. Nor are there sufficient allegations to state this cause of action against the City of Santa Paula.

Defendant maintains that this claim was frivolous because she was insisting on standards that would apply only under the federal False Claims Act but brought the claim under the California False Claims Act to avoid litigating this matter in federal court. (See Motion, p. 11:17-15:15.)

As with Tracy, Wells, supra, likewise did not involve section 7031, but rather the California False Claims Act (CFCA).

Defendant maintains that this claim was frivolous because she was insisting on standards that would apply only under the federal False Claims Act but brought the claim under the California False Claims Act to avoid litigating this matter in federal court. (See Motion, p. 11:17-15:15.)

Karabinus under the False Claims Act for falsely billing the court for his services as minor's counsel." (Id., 5:16-20.) Therefore, even if the court's response to Plaintiffs' records request could be argued to be a public disclosure, this action was "based upon" a prior private disclosure and therefore avoids the jurisdictional bar of Government Code section 12652(d)(3(A).

Code § 12651(a) (emphasis added.) Even if plaintiff had standing to assert a section 12651 violation, no conspiracy is stated because employees cannot conspire with their employer. Govt. Code § 12651(a)(3) (creating liability where a person “Conspires to commit a violation of this subdivision.”) Even if one can be liable for conspiring to commit a violation of that section, decisional law supports the view that such conspiracy is not cognizable among employees and employers.

As a result, she argues that any claims for reimbursement that Trividia presented or caused to be submitted were actionable false claims under the California False Claims Act (Gov. Code § 12650 et seq.) and the Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (Ins. Code § 1871 et seq.).

This case is Plaintiff’s second attempt to plead CFCA claims.

Accordingly, the Court first considers whether Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged the fraudulent conduct underlying his False Claims Act claim. Pleading Violation of a False Claims Act “As in any action sounding in fraud, the allegations of a CFCA complaint must be pleaded with particularity.” State of California ex. Rel McCann v. Bank of America, N.A. (“McCann”) (2011) 191 Cal. App. 4th 897, 906 (quoting and citing City of Pomona v. Superior Court (2001) 89 Cal.

Additionally, GATSs Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is DENIED on the grounds that the City has adequately alleged fraud. 3) Sixth Cause of Action A False Claims Act claim penalizes any person who [k]nowingly presents or causes to be presented a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval. (CCP § 12651(a)(1).)

In exercising its discretion the trial court may consider any matter relevant to the issue, including the relative merits of the action, the interest of the qui tam plaintiff, the purposes underlying the False Claims Act, and the potential waste of government resources." Laraway v. Sutro & Co., Inc. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 266, 275–76.

There are triable issues of fact as to the 1st cause of action for retaliation in violation of Government Code section 12653: Deas’ first cause of action alleges that his employment was terminated in violation of the whistleblower provision of the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”).

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

However, the Court there held that public school districts were not "persons" subject to suit under the False Claims Act because the enumerated list of covered "persons" under the statute does not include any words associated with public entities. The Court noted that the FCA defines covered "persons" to "include any natural person, corporation, firm, association, organization, partnership, limited liability company, business, or trust." (Gov. Code, § 12650, subd. (b)(5).)

Code §12653: Deas’ first cause of action alleges that his employment was terminated in violation of the whistleblower provision of the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”). To establish a claim for retaliation under the CFCA, Deas must show that: 1) he engaged in protected activity under the statute; 2) the employer knew that plaintiff engaged in the protected activity; and 3) the employer discriminated against the plaintiff for engaging in the protected activity. (McVeigh v.

There are triable issues of fact as to the 1st cause of action for retaliation in violation of Government Code section 12653: Deas’ first cause of action alleges that his employment was terminated in violation of the whistleblower provision of the California False Claims Act (“CFCA”).

In support of this argument, defendants cite to a qui tam action under the California False Claims Act which held that “as in any action sounding in fraud, the allegations of a [CFCA] complaint must be pleaded with particularity.” (Id. at p. 7:20-23 [citing State of California ex rel. McCann v. Bank of America, N.A. (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 897].)

In that case, the Court relied upon Fox in finding that [a] defendant who prevails on a CFCA [California False Claims Act] cause of action may recover only those fees incurred exclusively to defend against frivolous CFCA claims and not for fees incurred to defend against nonfrivolous CFCA claims.

To grant in part, and deny in part, Plaintiffs Diana and Daniella Fields' request for an order CFCA US, LLC's ("FCA") further responses to requests for production.

Fourth Cause of Action, Retaliation in Violation of the False Claims Act LBUSD argues that it, as a public school district, cannot be held liable for a violation of the False Claims Act. The Court considered this argument in connection with its 10/27/20 ruling on MWL’s motion for attorneys’ fees, but did not ultimately resolve the issue. LBUSD cites Wells v. One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal.4 th 1164 to support its position.

The Court finds/orders: The court grants in part, and denies in part, Plaintiffs Diana and Daniella Fields' request for an order CFCA US, LLC's ("FCA") further responses to requests for production.

As discussed above, one of Defendants’ arguments is that Plaintiffs did not have a reasonable belief that Rojas may be violating the False Claims Act. Evidence that he was, in fact, potentially violating this act was therefore relevant and admissible. 4. Luis Rojas Luis Rojas was unavailable to testify due to his invocation of the Fifth Amendment.

To grant in part, and deny in part, Plaintiffs Diana and Daniella Fields' request for an order CFCA US, LLC's ("FCA") further responses to requests for production.

Plaintiffs contend that a false claims act cause of action is fundamentally different from an unfair competition claim because the false claims act involves the public fisc. The argument is not supported by case law. Moreover, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine promotes vigorous advocacy to governmental bodies; it is based on principles similar to Civil Code section 47 that protects virtually all forms of conduct in the context of litigation. The Court does not find plaintiffs' distinction to be persuasive.

Motion To Lift The Seal Pursuant To Cal False Claims Act; Memo Of P&A Set for hearing on Thursday, March 22, 2012, Line 18, OTHER PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Motion To Lift The Seal Pursuant To Cal False Claims Act is Granted. No opposition filed and good cause shown. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.

In this third challenge to the relator’s operative pleading, defendant reasserts the False Claims Act is deficiently pleaded. The court has carefully reviewed the second amended complaint and determines the factual allegations within the pleading are insufficient to support the single cause of action for violations of the False Claims Act. The relator continues to be unable to plead allegations defendant made false claims for payment.

. _____________________________________________ 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.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Government Code § 12653 (False Claims Act) and Labor Code § 1102.5 (whistleblower protection). This cause of action is uncertain in that it combines two separate causes of action and the basis of the False Claims Act claim is unclear. The general demurrer to the twelfth cause of action for unfair business practices is sustained with leave to amend.

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.

Second Cause of Action – “Personal Injury By Fraud”: The second cause of action once again cites Government Code section 12650, et seq., and alleges that Ms. Emerson’s complaints regarding noise to the sheriff’s office; her request to the District Attorney’s Office to press charges against William Powers, III; and her requests to this court regarding her civil restraining orders violate the False Claims Act.

With respect to the first cause of action, Retaliation under Qui Tam/California False Claims Act, the Church Defendants argue that plaintiff did not comply with Government Code § 12652(c)(2) and (c)(3) because plaintiff did not file the complaint under seal or serve the Attorney General with a copy of the Complaint. However, plaintiff has not brought a qui tam action under Government Code § 12652.

Plaintiffs allege that HDSI caused benefits to be paid to Plaintiffs by false claims, subjecting Plaintiffs to criminal prosecution under the False Claims Act. (Compl., ¶ 77.) Plaintiffs allege that HDSI’s obligation “not to harm Plaintiff” arises from a trust. (Compl., ¶ 78.) Based on these allegations, it is not clear that Plaintiffs are alleging a violation of the False Claims Act by HDSI.

Plaintiffs allege that HDSI caused benefits to be paid to Plaintiffs by false claims, subjecting Plaintiffs to criminal prosecution under the False Claims Act. (Compl., ¶ 77.) Plaintiffs allege that HDSI’s obligation “not to harm Plaintiff” arises from a trust. (Compl., ¶ 78.) Based on these allegations, it is not clear that Plaintiffs are alleging a violation of the False Claims Act by HDSI.

The action is brought under the California False Claims Act and seeks millions of dollars in damages against thirteen medical laboratories for allegedly overcharging the Medi-Cal system for tens of millions of lab tests. The case was designated as complex in San Mateo County and assigned to a single judge for all purposes on January 29, 2009. On April 17, the San Mateo Court granted defendants' motion to transfer venue to Sacramento County. There is no opposition to the current motion.

Code § 12652(e)(2)(B) [requiring False Claims Act qui tam settlements be "fair, adequate, and reasonable under all the circumstances"].) The Court therefore takes guidance from the context of class action settlements, which must also be found to be "fair, adequate, and reasonable." (See, e.g., Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244.)

Recology San Francisco (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 443, 455 (“to establish a prima facie case, a plaintiff alleging retaliation under the CFCA must show: “(1) that he or she engaged in activity protected under the statute; (2) that the employer knew the plaintiff engaged in protected activity; and (3) that the employer discriminated against the plaintiff because he or she engaged in protected activity.”) These individuals are not alleged to be Garwick’s employers.

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.

NORCAL contends that the 2016 CID was always, and only, a False Claims Act (“FCA”) proceeding. That appears to be correct. Or at least, CVC has not conclusively shown otherwise. The FCA regulates false claims presented to the government, not injury to patients arising from alleged medical malpractice. (31 U.S.C. § 3729.) The Initial CID states that it is issued in the course of a “False Claims Act Investigation” which “concerns allegations that [CVC] has submitted false claims to the U.S.

First the opposition contends that this court has jurisdiction over Eric because the alleged violation of the False Claims Act is a direct engagement with the State of California. However, plaintiff submits no authority to the effect that simply including a cause of action under the False Claims Act is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over a non- resident defendant.

Code § 12652(e)(2)(B) [requiring False Claims Act qui tam settlements be "fair, adequate, and reasonable under all the circumstances"].) The Court therefore takes guidance from the context of class action settlements, which must also be found to be "fair, adequate, and reasonable." (See, e.g., Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 244.)

Rather, they are for (1) violations of the False Claims Act and Labor Code § 1102.5, with respect to the first cause of action and (2) for violations of Labor Code § 98.6, with respect to the seventh cause of action. Those statutes contain provisions prohibiting retaliation for complaining about violations of law. (Gov. Code § 12653(a) [allowing employee who was discharged for acting to stop violation of False Claims Act to file action]; Lab.

BACKGROUND Petitioner filed a qui tam petition on behalf of himself and the California Victim Compensation Board for the state of California under the California False Claims Act against Respondent. Respondent thereafter filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s qui tam action pursuant to California Government Code, Sections 12652(d)(3)(A) and 12652(e)(2)(A). Petitioner never filed an opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

City of New York, New York (2009) 556 U.S. 928, 931, held, "Although the United States is aware of and minimally involved in every [False Claims Act] action, we hold that it is not a "party" to an [False Claims Act] action for purposes of the appellate filing deadline unless it has exercised its right to intervene in the case." Eisenstein concerned the procedural issue of whether a False Claims Act plaintiff was entitled to the extended federal filing deadline.

(See e.g., Gov’t Code, §§17, 12650.) Further, the language of CCP §1161(2) states that payment “may” be made personally and if so, then the usual days and hours that person will be available to receive payment should be provided in the Notice. Thus, the Notice does not explicitly state that payment must be made personally. Second, Defendant argues that the declaration of Tom Oldberg (provided in support of Plaintiffs’ moving papers) is fatally defective. Mr.

On March 23, 2018, the Court of Appeal issued its remittitur, which was filed in this court on March 28. (2) Case No. 15CV01332 In case No. 15CV01332 (False Claims Action), City filed its action on February 9, 2015, in Ventura County Superior Court asserting causes of action against N&A for violation of the False Claims Act (Gov.

First Cause of Action: False Claims Act - Tentative Ruling: GRANT without leave to amend. In order to state a cause of action under the False Claims Act, the following elements must be alleged: (1) a false or fraudulent claim (2) that was material to the decision-making process, (3) which defendant presented, or caused to be presented, to the [government] for payment or approval (4) with knowledge that the claim was false or fraudulent. ( Hooper v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

In response, FTR filed a lawsuit against District for breach of contract and statutory penalties and District filed a lawsuit against FTR under the False Claims Act (Gov. Code §12650 et seq.) for presenting false billing statements. In the District lawsuit, FTR cross-complained against District for alleged discriminatory conduct, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1981 and 1983.

City asserts five causes of action against defendants: (1) violation of False Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 12650 et seq.); (2) breach of contract; (3) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) breach of authority to bill a public entity within a statutory cap (Gov. Code, §§ 34000, 40602).

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.

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.

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].)

City asserts causes of action for (1) intentional and constructive fraud, (2) civil conspiracy to defraud, (3) breach of fiduciary duty, (4) violation of the California False Claims Act, (5) violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 1090, (6) aiding and abetting violation of Cal. Gov. Code § 1090, (7) conspiracy to aid and abet breach of fiduciary duty, (8) constructive trust, and (9) accounting. The second, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth causes of action are asserted against Ogas.

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.

Kostant, 12650 Riverside Drive. Ste. 100, North Hollywood. CA 91607. (UD Ex. 3 § 17.1.) Nothing in the proof of service for the NTQ shows that Plaintiff complied with the notice requirements as required by the Lease. In commercial leases the landlord and commercial tenant may lawfully agree to notice procedures that differ from those provided in the statutory provisions governing unlawful detainer. [Citation.]

One2One Learning Foundation (2006) 39 Cal. 4th 1164, 1196, holding that the CFCA and its treble-damage provisions are not applicable to public entities since application would frustrate "the purpose behind the statutory ban on punitive damages against public entities-to protect their tax-funded revenues from legal judgments in amounts beyond those strictly necessary to recompense the injured party..."

The SAC names as defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority and Does 1 to 100 and asserts causes of action for: Violation of Labor Code § 1102.5, 1102.6; and False Claims Act: Whistleblower Protection – Violation of Gov. Code § 12653. Defendant now moves for an order compelling Plaintiff’s verified responses, without objections, to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Set One and Special Interrogatories, Set One.

Defendants discuss at length the first-to-file rule found in the federal False Claims Act but fail to apply that standard here. ( See e.g. U.S. ex rel. LaCorte v. SmithKline Beecham Clinical Labs, Inc. , 149 F.3d 227, 232 (3d Cir. 1998).) In opposition, Allstate asserts the two cases are not “related” under Ins. Code § 1871.7(e)(5) because the State Farm action seeks redress for unlawful kickback agreements and the Allstate action seeks redress for altered reports.