X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Patrick Adrian filed a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act against the Regents of the University of California, as manager of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The suit was filed in the northern district of California. Adrian amended his complains to add individual employees in California. Adrian also named several employees in the Biomedical Research Foundation of Northwest Louisiana and Louisiana Center for Manufacturing. All parties moved to dismiss, and the Louisiana defendants also moved to transfer the case to the western district of Louisiana. The California court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the FCA did not allow for a suit against the state, that is, the regents. With the California defendants dismissed, the California court then transferred the case to Louisiana, without ruling on those defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Louisiana defendants filed a new motion to dismiss, which the Louisiana court granted. Adrian appeals the rulings of both the California and the Louisiana courts. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court first finds no reason to deviate from the line of California cases holding that the regents are an arm of the state. This, despite the fact that, when operating the Livermore laboratory, it is competing against private companies. The California court correctly dismissed the action against the regents because the FCA does not provide for a cause of action against state agencies. As for the dismissal of the individual California defendants, the court cites cases that say in the context of civil rights cases that “a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the official’s office.” In light of these cases and the fact that the defendants were apparently named in their official capacities, the court finds that claims against state agency employees in their official capacities are treated as claims against the state agency for purposes of the FCA. The court agrees that leave to amend should be given freely, but the court finds that the Louisiana court’s refusal to allow Adrian to file a third amended complaint was not an abuse of discretion. Adrian did not indicate what additional facts he could plead that would correct the deficiencies of his previous complaints. OPINION:Garza, J.; Garza, DeMoss and Clement, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.