Legal Opinion

Hoefer v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California

Decided May 25, 1999No. SA CV 98-447-GLT(KY)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

TAYLOR, District Judge.

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.…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. De La CuestaSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. NovotnySupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  4. De Canas v. BicaSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  5. Sheldon Portman v. County of Santa Clara Bob DiridonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hoefer v. Fluor Daniel, Inc.District Court, C.D. California · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API