State of CA v. Super. Ct.

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 27, 2014B252073California10,564 words

Opinion

Opinion

Background The Underlying Action Michael Wilson, a former Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. sales representative, on behalf of the People of the State of California, filed the underlying qui tam action1 against Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co. (BMS) on March 16, 2007, and later amended it to add

1 “‘Qui tam is short for the Latin phrase qui tam pro domino rege quam pro se ipso in hac parte sequitur, which means “who pursues this action on our Lord the King’s behalf as well as his own.”’” (San Francisco Unified School District ex rel. Manuel Contreras, et al. v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 438, 442, fn. 2; Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens (2000) 529 U.S. 765, 768, fn. 1.) 2 Lucius and Eve Allen, also former BMS sales representatives, as relators.2 (State of California ex rel. Michael Wilson, Lucius Allen, and Eve Allen, Relators v. Bristol- Meyers Squibb Co., Los Angeles Superior Court case No. BC367873.) The complaint was filed in the name of the State of California, under seal, as required by statute (Ins. Code, § 1871.7, subd. (e)), and was later unsealed by the court. In March 2011, the California Insurance Commissioner (the Commissioner)…

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.