223 Cal. App. 4th 630
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Driscoll, a radiologist, filed an amended cross-complaint in Madera County Superior Court alleging FCA retaliation under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) against Spencer and related parties.
- Spencer demurred to the FCA retaliation claim, and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.
- Driscoll sought a writ of mandate to overturn the demurrer; the court appointed counsel and stayed proceedings, and this court issued orders to show cause.
- The FCA retaliation claim arises from Driscoll’s complaints about billing practices and whistleblower activity following his demotion/termination.
- The central issue is whether state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts over FCA retaliation claims, and the court ultimately holds that they do.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over FCA retaliation claims? | Driscoll asserts concurrent jurisdiction; no explicit ouster. | Spencer argues FCA claims are exclusively federal. | Yes; state courts have concurrent jurisdiction. |
| Is there an explicit statutory directive ousting state courts from FCA retaliation claims? | Statute silent on exclusive federal jurisdiction. | Language and structure imply exclusive federal jurisdiction. | No explicit ouster; concurrent jurisdiction remains. |
| Is there an unmistakable implication from legislative history that FCA retaliation claims are exclusive to federal courts? | Legislative history shows no clear intent to exclusivity. | Legislative history supports exclusivity. | No unmistakable implication; concurrent jurisdiction maintained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cianci v. Superior Court, 40 Cal.3d 903 (Cal. 1985) (state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over federal claims unless ousted by Congress)
- Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobile Oil Corp., 453 U.S. 473 (U.S. 1981) (mere grant of federal jurisdiction does not oust state courts; three showings needed to rebut presumption)
- Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1990) (concurrent jurisdiction over civil claims like RICO; states can adjudicate federal claims)
- Hartigan v. Palumbo Bros., Inc., 797 F. Supp. 624 (N.D. Ill. 1992) (no legislative history showing exclusive federal jurisdiction over FCA retaliation claims)
- Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 121 F. Supp. 2d 643 (N.D. Ohio 2000) (no clear incompatibility; supports state-court concurrent jurisdiction)
- Soni v. Boston Medical Center Corp., 683 F. Supp. 2d 74 (D. Mass. 2009) (district court acknowledged concurrent jurisdiction over FCA claims)
- Paul v. Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc., 53 F.3d 1282 (5th Cir. 1995) (concurrent jurisdiction; FCA claims not exclusive to federal courts)
- LeBlanc v. United States, 50 F.3d 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction; distinguishes scope of FCA actions vs. state courts)