Hoefer
Hoefer v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
Taylor, J.
REVISED ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
On a motion for reconsideration of the federal preemption issue, the Court withdraws its May 25, 1999 order Hoefer v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 50 F.Supp.2d 975 (C.D.Cal.1999), and issues this revised order. Concerning three issues not yet decided by the Ninth Circuit, the Court holds California’s False Claims Act does not protect federal whistleblowers, the intracorpo-rate conspiracy doctrine applies to a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim, and a state wrongful employment retaliation claim is not 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. Government Code § 12653 ; (3) violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2, 3); and (4) wrongful…