This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Retaliation
First Amendment Retaliation

AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Michael Weinstein v. Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Division of HIV and STD Programs, Los Angeles County Department of the Auditor-Controller, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, Jonathan E. Fielding, M.D., Mario J. Perez,

Published: Jul. 26, 2014 | Result Date: Feb. 10, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:12-cv-10400-PA-SH Bench Decision –  Defense

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Tom Myers

Samantha R. Azulay


Defendant

Joel N. Klevens
(Glaser, Weil, Fink, Howard, Avchen & Shapiro LLP)

Andrea E. Ross
(Office of the Los Angeles County Counsel)

John K. Lilly


Facts

AIDS Healthcare Foundation and Michael Weinstein sued Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Health, Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Health, Division of HIV and STD Programs, Los Angeles County Dept. of the Auditor-Controller, Los Angeles County Dept. of Health Services, Jonathan E. Fielding, M.D., Mario J. Perez, Zev Yaroslavsky, and Gloria Molina, concerning defendants' treatment of plaintiffs.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs accused defendants of gross misuse of resources, waste of public funds, favoritism, retaliation, and other improprieties. Plaintiffs accused defendants of initiating a retaliatory campaign against plaintiffs, including their conspiracy to create a bogus audit, demand millions of dollars from AHF, and then flaunting those false audit findings to other providers and the public in an effort to intimidate providers into submission. Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for First Amendment Retaliation under the U.S. Constitution, violations of the Civil Rights Act, conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, retaliation under the federal False Claims Act, violations of the California Constitution, violations of the California Whistleblower Protection Act, declaratory relief, and defamation.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS:
Defendants argued that there was no evidence of retaliation and that the audits showed overbilling by AHF of $7.7 million.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. Alternatively, defendants also moved for summary judgment.

Result

On June 3, 2013, the district court granted defendants Los Angeles County, Fielding, Perez, Yaroslavsky, and Molina's motion to dismiss certain claims with prejudice. On Feb. 10, 2014, the district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' remaining federal claims, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. Ultimately, the district court entered judgment in favor of defendants.

Other Information

FILING DATE: Dec. 5, 2012.


#106171

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390