May employee sue for whistleblower retaliation under the federal False Claims Act in state court, and have that right decided in a petition for extraordinary relief?
In Driscoll v. Superior Court (filed 1/30/14) 2014 DJDAR 11270, the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, answered yes on both counts, issuing a writ of mandate instructing the state trial court to overrule the demurrer it had previously sustained without leave to amend.
Driscoll had been employed as a medical doctor with real party Spencer's medical group. Spencer initiated the state action by suing Driscoll, alleging various causes of actions including breach of contract, disparagement, fraud and defamation. Driscoll proceeded to file a federal court action alleging retaliation under the FCA; he additionally cross-complained in the state action claiming whistleblower retaliation under the federal FCA and wrongful termination. The gist of his claims was that Spencer refused to pay him for excess hours worked and he was terminated in retaliation for requesting such pay and for complaining about Spencer's billing practices which he believed were fraudulent concerning Medicare and Medi-Cal patients.
In the state court action, Spencer demurred to the federal FCA causes of action alleging the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The trial court agreed, finding that the federal FCA statute's reference to the filing of such action in an "appropriate [federal] district court" implies that the state courts would not have concurrent jurisdiction. Driscoll then petitioned the state appellate court for a writ of mandate to reinstate the federal FCA causes of action.
Because Driscoll still had other causes of action he could pursue in his state action cross-complaint and still had to defend against Spencer's complaint, Driscoll did not have an order from which he could appeal; his resort for relief here thus was for extraordinary writ relief, which is a method of review dependent on the appellate court's exercise of discretion. Here, the court exercised that discretion because: (1) it appeared the trial court deprived Driscoll of the opportunity to plead his cause of action and immediate review may prevent a needless trial and reversal (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894); and (2) the demurrer raised an important question of subject matter jurisdiction (San Diego Gas & Electric v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.3d4th 893, 913).