In Re Cipro Cases I and II

Good Law
121 Cal. App. 4th 402·17 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1286·2004 Daily Journal DAR 9609·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7104
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 21, 2004D043543California5,779 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aaron, J.

Petitioners Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, Inc., The Rugby Group, Inc., Watson Pharmaceutics, Inc., and Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., seek a writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate its order granting class certification in a coordinated proceeding against them for alleged violations of the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16720 et seq.), the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), and the common law. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the class. We nevertheless grant relief because the class as defined by the trial court is overbroad to the extent it includes purchasers of Cipro who paid a flat copayment when they would have paid for a generic substitute under their health insurance.

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Allegations of Class Action Complaint

This matter arises out of a series of cases filed in various counties in California, which have been coordinated in the Superior Court of San Diego County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 404 et seq. The following facts are taken from the consolidated second amended complaint filed in the coordinated…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.