The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a significant settlement in the case of Ling v. City of Los Angeles, docket number 25-249. The court's decision affects the City of Los Angeles and its compliance with federal housing accessibility laws. This ruling is important because it confirms the validity of the settlement and reinforces the protections offered to whistleblowers under the False Claims Act (FCA).
The case began when Mei Ling and the Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley filed a qui tam action against the City of Los Angeles. They alleged that the city made false claims regarding its compliance with federal housing accessibility laws. The United States government later intervened in the case, leading to years of litigation.
In September 2026, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's approval of a settlement amounting to $38,266,989. This settlement was reached after extensive negotiations and was deemed fair, adequate, and reasonable by the court. Additionally, the City of Los Angeles entered into a voluntary compliance agreement (VCA) with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to address its noncompliance with federal laws.
The parties involved in the case include Mei Ling, the Fair Housing Council of the San Fernando Valley, and the City of Los Angeles. The dispute centered around the city's alleged misrepresentations about its compliance with federal housing accessibility requirements. The case reached the Ninth Circuit after the district court approved the settlement, which Ling contested.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling clarified the relationship between the FCA and the VCA. The court determined that the VCA did not constitute an alternate remedy that would preclude Ling from receiving a share of the FCA settlement. The court stated, "Under the circumstances of this case, the VCA did not take the place of the FCA suit or settlement, and so the VCA was not an alternate remedy." This ruling aligns with interpretations from other circuits regarding the definition of an alternate remedy under the FCA.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of relators, like Ling, who bring attention to fraudulent activities against the government. The court affirmed that relators are entitled to a share of any recovery when the government intervenes in a qui tam action. The ruling also reinforced the principle that settlements under the FCA must be fair and reasonable, even if they differ from initial damage calculations.
The impact of this ruling extends beyond this case. It reaffirms the rights of whistleblowers and the importance of compliance with federal housing laws. The settlement will allow the City of Los Angeles to invest in accessible housing, with a commitment to spend at least $200 million over the next ten years to improve compliance with federal standards.
Moving forward, this ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving the FCA and housing accessibility compliance. It underscores the need for municipalities to adhere to federal laws and the consequences of failing to do so. The decision also highlights the role of the court in ensuring that settlements are fair and just for all parties involved.
As for what lies ahead, it is unclear whether the City of Los Angeles will appeal this decision. However, the ruling stands as a significant affirmation of the settlement and the protections afforded to whistleblowers. There are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling.