Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc.

8 Citing cases

  1. La Belle v. Barclays Capital Inc.

    664 F. Supp. 3d 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)

    Barclays, meanwhile, primarily relies on Erhart v. Bofl Holding, Inc., a case from the Southern District of California. 612 F.Supp.3d 1062 (S.D.Cal. 2020).

  2. Balladarez v. Vitro Flat Glass, LLC

    Civil Action 1:20-cv-957-LHR-HBK (E.D. Cal. Jun. 27, 2024)

    California recognizes a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Erhart v. Bof I Holding, Inc., 612 F.Supp.3d 1062, 1114 (S.D. Cal. 2020). “The elements of a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy are (1) an employer-employee relationship, (2) the employer terminated the plaintiff's employment, (3) the termination was substantially motivated by a violation of public policy, and (4) the discharge caused the plaintiff harm.”

  3. Garriott v. The Boeing Co.

    CV 24-4735-DMG (MARx) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2024)

    To prove a Section 1102.5 claim, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and establish that he: (1) engaged in protected activity, (2) the defendant subjected the plaintiff to an adverse employment action, and (3) there is a causal link between the two. Erhart v. Bof Holding, Inc., 612 F.Supp.3d 1062, 1108 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (citing Ross v. Cty. of Riverside, 36 Cal.App. 5th 580, 591, (2019)).

  4. Garriott v. The Boeing Co.

    CV 24-4735-DMG (MARx) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2024)

    To prove a Section 1102.5 claim, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of retaliation, and establish that he: (1) engaged in protected activity, (2) the defendant subjected the plaintiff to an adverse employment action, and (3) there is a causal link between the two. Erhart v. Bof Holding, Inc., 612 F.Supp.3d 1062, 1108 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (citing Ross v. Cty. of Riverside, 36 Cal.App. 5th 580, 591, (2019)).

  5. Rounds v. The Bd. of Trs. of the Cal. State Univ.

    1:20-cv-00170-DAD-CKD (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2024)

    “An employee engages in activity protected by the statute when the employee discloses ‘reasonably based suspicions' of illegal activity.” Erhart v. Bofi Holding, Inc., 612 F.Supp.3d 1062, 1108 (S.D. Cal. 2020) (quoting Green v. Ralee Eng'g Co., 19 Cal.4th 66, 87 (1998))

  6. Roush v. San Joaquin Valley Coll.

    Civil Action H-21-556 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)

    California recognizes a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Erhart v. Bof I Holding, Inc., 612 F.Supp.3d 1062, 1114 (S.D. Cal. 2020). “The elements of a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy are (1) an employer-employee relationship, (2) the employer terminated the plaintiff's employment, (3) the termination was substantially motivated by a violation of public policy, and (4) the discharge caused the plaintiff harm.

  7. Magnuson v. Exelon Corp.

    658 F. Supp. 3d 652 (C.D. Ill. 2023)

    Though he appears to allege shareholder fraud, First Suppl. Compl. ¶ 46, he fails to "discuss the elements of shareholder fraud or demonstrate how . . . [to] connect the dots to conclude he had a reasonable belief—or a reasonably mistaken belief—that shareholder fraud was occurring." Erhart v. BofI Holding, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-02287-BAS-NLS, 612 F.Supp.3d 1062, 1100 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2020); see also Bishop, 2006 WL 1460032, at *9 ("Plaintiff does not support her conclusory contentions with an explanation of how exactly the compliance program with which she disagreed violated § 1341, § 1343, or an SEC regulation related to fraud."). Absent those basic details, the First Supplemental Complaint does not sufficiently allege that Plaintiff possessed an objectively reasonable belief that SOX-contemplated fraud occurred, nor does it present "a story that holds together," Carlson, 758 F.3d at 826-27 (quotation marks omitted).

  8. Khosla Ventures IV v. Neutron Holdings, Inc.

    No. A165507 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2023)

    "The terms 'displacement,' 'preemption,' and 'supersession' have all been used to describe CUTSA's effect." (Erhart v. Bof I Holding, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2020) 612 F.Supp.3d 1062, 1117, fn. 24.) Specifically, the trial court ruled KV's first four claims were preempted by CUTSA and, as to KV's fifth claim, ruled it had already granted summary judgment on KV's fraud claims.