Rocco v. Deloitte Consulting CA4/3

Filed 4/17/25 Rocco v. Deloitte Consulting CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THOMAS ROCCO,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G063513

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-01011837)

DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment and a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kimberly A. Knill, Judge. Affirmed. Motion to Dismiss Appeal. Granted in part, denied in part. Motion to Augment the Record. Denied. Motion to File a Reply Appendix. Denied. Thomas Rocco, in pro. per. Hueston Hennigan, John C. Hueston, and Joseph A. Reiter, for Defendant and Respondent.

Thomas Rocco appeals from (1) a judgment of dismissal following an order granting Deloitte Consulting, LLP’s (Deloitte’s) motion for summary judgment, and (2) a postjudgment order denying his motion to vacate the judgment. As discussed below, we conclude his appeal of the judgment is untimely, but his appeal from the motion to vacate is timely. We further conclude Rocco failed to show the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate. Accordingly, we affirm the postjudgment order denying his motion to vacate the judgment of dismissal in favor of Deloitte. RELEVANT FACTS On July 8, 2019, Rocco filed a Fourth Amended Qui Tam Complaint against Deloitte, alleging causes of action under the False Claims Act, Government Code section 12650 et seq.1 Deloitte demurred to the complaint, and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. After Rocco appealed, this court partially reversed, concluding Rocco adequately pleaded a single claim against Deloitte. (See Rocco v. SAP America (Sept. 8, 2021, G058937) [nonpub. opn.].) Following remittitur, Rocco eventually filed a Sixth Amended Qui Tam Complaint. Deloitte then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which Rocco opposed. Following argument, the trial court granted Deloitte’s summary judgment motion. It concluded the public disclosure bar precluded Rocco’s qui tam claim against Deloitte, and that Rocco failed to show a triable issue of fact existed as to the element of falsity. Judgment of dismissal in favor of Deloitte was entered on September 5, 2023. The next day, September 6, the superior clerk