Hoefer
Hoefer v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
Taylor, J.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
On three issues not yet decided by the Ninth Circuit, the Court holds California’s False Claims Act does not protect federal whistleblowers, the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine applies to a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim, and a state wrongful employment retaliation claim is preempted by the Federal False Claims Act.
I. BACKGROUND
, Plaintiff Hoefer was hired by Defendant Fluor Daniel in 1988, and later served as Fluor’s Director of Government Finance Compliance. In 1998 Hoefer was suspended and in 1999 he was terminated. Hoefer alleges he was retaliated against for bringing two qui, tam actions charging Fluor with violations of the Federal False Claims Act.
Plaintiff sued Fluor for (1) violation of the Federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 and following; (2) violation of the California False Claims Act, Cal. Govern ment Code § 12653; (3) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2, 3); and (4) wrongful employment retaliation in violation of public policy. Defendant does not now challenge the Federal False Claims Act claim, but moves to dismiss the other claims.