7/26/18 Dept. 73 Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding KEN SIMMONS v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF LOS ANGELES (BC693751) Counsel for plaintiff/opposing party: Eliot Rushovich; Lisa Watanabe-Peagler; Nehemiah Choi (RISE, etc.) Counsel for defendant/moving party Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles: Karl Lindegren; Lizbeth Ochoa; Lauren Stockunas (Fisher, etc.) DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (filed 5/16/18) TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles’ demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant shall file and serve its answer to the FAC no later than 8/6/18. Discussion On May 16, 2018, Defendant filed its demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for violation of Government Code § 12653 because Plaintiff has not pled actions in furtherance of a false claims action, i.e., that Plaintiff investigated matters that “reasonably could lead” to a viable False Claims Act claim. Defendant argues that, because the City Attorney’s Office, its public emp
Hearing Date
July 26, 2018
Type
Wrongful Termination (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
7/26/18 Dept. 73 Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding KEN SIMMONS v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF LOS ANGELES (BC693751) Counsel for plaintiff/opposing party: Eliot Rushovich; Lisa Watanabe-Peagler; Nehemiah Choi (RISE, etc.) Counsel for defendant/moving party Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles: Karl Lindegren; Lizbeth Ochoa; Lauren Stockunas (Fisher, etc.) DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (filed 5/16/18) TENTATIVE RULING Defendant Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles’ demurrer is OVERRULED. Defendant shall file and serve its answer to the FAC no later than 8/6/18. Discussion On May 16, 2018, Defendant filed its demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action for violation of Government Code § 12653 because Plaintiff has not pled actions in furtherance of a false claims action, i.e., that Plaintiff investigated matters that “reasonably could lead” to a viable False Claims Act claim. Defendant argues that, because the City Attorney’s Office, its public emp