Abbott Labs. v. Superior Court of Orange Cnty.

Bad Law
233 Cal. Rptr. 3d 730·24 Cal. App. 5th 1
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 31, 2018D072577California15,363 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Rourke, J.

*733 *9 The Orange County District Attorney (the District Attorney), representing "the People of the State of California," sued petitioners Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp., alleging generally that petitioners engaged in a scheme to keep generic versions of a prescription drug off the market in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL; Bus. & Prof. Code, 1 § 17200 et seq. ). The District Attorney sought an injunction as well as civil penalties and restitution. Petitioners unsuccessfully moved to strike portions of the operative complaint alleging "claims for restitution and civil penalties based on conduct outside the territorial jurisdiction of Orange County."

In this writ proceeding, petitioners ask us to resolve a single issue: whether section 17204 of the UCL "permit[s] a county district attorney to bring a claim that seeks relief for alleged injuries to residents of California counties whom he or she does not represent, based on conduct occurring outside the county he or she serves ...." Petitioners argue district attorneys have no…

dissent Opinion

Dato, J.

As an intermediate appellate court, our primary role is to review *752 final decisions of the superior court for prejudicial error. We generally avoid broad legal policy pronouncements, leaving that to the Supreme Court and the Legislature. Sometimes policy considerations can play an important part in our decisions, but even then we take pains to assure that the policy questions are squarely presented by the facts of the case and necessary to the decision we are required to render. *32 I believe the majority's decision to entertain the writ petition in this case violates each of these salutary guidelines. The majority then compound this error by deciding the ill-framed legal issue in a manner that will materially impair the interests of California consumers by fundamentally altering the structure of consumer protection laws in this state. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

A

Let's start with what is really going on here. As is expressly authorized by statute ( Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204 1 ), the Orange County District Attorney has charged defendant pharmaceutical manufacturers with engaging in a statewide unfair business practice in violation of the Unfair Competition…

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.