Rothschild

Rothschild v. Tyco Internationall (US), Inc.

Good Law
2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 692·2000 Daily Journal DAR 9697·83 Cal. App. 4th 488·99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 721·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7354
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 30, 2000D034567California3,871 words

Opinion

Opinion

McINTYRE, J.

Marianne Rothschild filed an action against Tyco International (US), Inc. (Tyco), Watts Industries, Inc. (Watts), James Jones Co. (Jones), Mueller Co. (Mueller), Westbume Supply, Inc. and Marden Susco Company (collectively, the defendants), alleging that the defendants violated the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.; Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 169, fn. 2 [ 83 Cal.Rptr.2d 548 , 973 P.2d 527 ]). The superior court sustained the defendants’ demurrer to Rothschild’s second amended complaint without leave to amend, holding that her action was barred by the California False Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 12650 et seq. [all statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise specified]), because a separate lawsuit had been filed against the defendants for violations of that statutory scheme based on the same underlying factual allegations that provide the basis for this action. Rothschild appeals, contending that the court erred in finding that her action was barred. We agree and reverse the order.

Factual and Procedural Background

In accordance with the traditional standards of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.