LEGAL MEMOS

Ryan v. County of Los Angeles (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 237. In this case the Court holds that claims made under the California False Claims Act cannot be pursued against public entities and therefore protected activity cannot be established by showing a reasonable possibility of a False Claims action leading to the conclusion that public entities cannot be liable for retaliation as part of the California False Claims Act matter.

Mendell-Brown v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 478. The trial court granted the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment after Plaintiff did not file an opposition separate statement to that Motion. The Court of Appeal affirmed finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in grating the Motion pursuant to CPP § 437c subdivision (b)(3). While Defendant had opposed the Motion Defendant had not filed an opposing separate statement as required under the statute. The Court said given the complexity of the Motion the trial court was entitled to the benefit of an opposing separate statement. The Court of Appeal also noted the trial court had granted two continuances to file the opposition, but there was also no opposition addressing Defendant’s evidence or any declarations presenting disputed factual issues.

/ilc