With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". section 3729. 1. Retaliation Claims are not Dependent Upon a Successful FCA Cause of Action The City argues that Plaintiffs retaliation claim should be dismissed because liability under section 3730(h) cannot exist absent a viable qui tam claim under the FCA. (See Defendant City of Los Angeles’ Supplemental Briefing Pursuant to Court Order (“Supp.Brief’) at 5.) Since a municipality is immune from liability under section 3729, the City claims that Plaintiffs investigation into the City’s alleged fraud cannot constitute a lawful act in furtherance of an action under the FCA, as required by section 3730(h). (Id.) Retaliation claims under section 3730(h) are not dependent on a relator’s ability to succeed on, or even file, a cause of action under section 3729. See Hopper, 91 F.3d at 1269 (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel v. Howard Univ., 153

A: holding that to be protected by the fca when confronting an employer the employee must sufficiently allege activity with a nexus to a qui tam action or fraud against the united states government
B: holding that in order to engage in protected activity under section 3730h a plaintiff must only investigate  matters which were calculated or reasonably could lead to a viable fca action
C: holding that the districts decision that the plaintiff could only pursue an iep diploma was reasonably calculated to benefit the plaintiff and was in conformity with the requirements of the idea
D: holding that an employer could be held liable under section 3730h for retaliating against an employee who prosecuted an fca action against employers client
B.