Spencer

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of William Spencer, et al., (Spencer) and setting the penalties for violation of the California False Claims Act (CFCA). Spencer cross-appeals the denial of post-trial motions and refusal to award attorney’s fees. We affirm on all grounds.

I

BART’s unjust enrichment claim fads for want of a loss. Lectrodryer v. SeoulBank, 77 Cal.App.4th 723, 726 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 881 (2000) (noting that the elements of unjust enrichment are “receipt of a benefit and unjust retention of the benefit at the expense of another.”). Even assuming that County of San Bernardino v. Walsh, 158 Cal.App.4th 533 , 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 848 (2008), recognized an exception to this rule, BART’s claim does not fall into that exception. See Peterson v. Cellico P’ship, 164 Cal.App.4th 1583, 1594 , 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 316 (2008) (holding that Walsh “does not support plaintiffs’ assertion [that] they need not allege any actual injury to bring an unjust enrichment claim”).

Concrete financial loss is required for cognizable RICO injury, yet none exists. Chaset v. Fleer/Skybox Int’l, LP, 300 F.3d 1083 ,…