Procedural Posture
Plaintiffs sued defendants, a brand-name drug manufacturer and generic drug manufacturers, alleging violation of the Cartwright Act, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq., and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq., and common law monopolization. The San Diego County Superior Court, California, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiffs appealed.
Overview
A real estate litigation lawyer San Diego manages large and small legal issues in lawsuits that any business may need to negotiate as a regular course of business. Plaintiffs' causes of action arose from an agreement settling litigation between the brand-name manufacturer and one of the generic manufacturers concerning the validity of the brand-named manufacturer's patent and related agreements involving the other defendants. The court concluded that the agreements did not violate the Cartwright Act because the agreements undisputedly did not restrain competition beyond the exclusionary scope of the patent. Because the agreements did not lack any redeeming virtue, they were not unlawful per se. The agreements also did not violate the Cartwright Act under a rule-of-reason analysis. Plaintiffs' contention that there was a triable issue of fact as to whether the brand-name manufacturer's infringement suit was objectively baseless due to inequitable conduct in procuring the patent was not a basis for reversal. To the extent a sham-litigation claim was sufficiently pleaded, it arose from and was preempted by federal patent law. The court's conclusion that defendants were not liable under the Cartwright Act for entering into the agreements was also dispositive of plaintiffs' causes of action for violation of the UCL and common law monopolization.
Outcome
The judgment was affirmed.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiffs, former employees who were terminated and who claimed that they either did not receive all of their final pay or were paid their final pay late, filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 motion for class certification in their action against defendant employer for alleged violations of Cal. Lab. Code §§ 201-203, 227.3 and of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Defendant filed a motion to strike or, in the alternative, for leave to file a surreply.
Overview
Plaintiffs contended that defendant used computer programs that tracked for overpayment of final pay to employees but did not employ programs similarly tracking for underpayment of final pay. As a result, plaintiffs asserted that there were approximately 145,000 former employees whose employment terminated during the class period and who were victims of unpaid or untimely paid final wages. The court rejected defendant's contention that alleged errors in the analysis of defendant's payroll-related databases by plaintiff's expert rendered all proposed subclasses unascertainable. However, defendant was not required to keep accurate databases indicating when employees made themselves available for tender of their final pay. Thus, the incompleteness of the databases was fatal to the ascertainability of the subclass of employees who allegedly received their final pay late. For purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2), (b)(3) commonality, the court rejected defendant's contention that plaintiffs' claims would require independent proof on the questions of willful failure to pay and unconstitutionally disproportionate damages under Cal. Lab. Code § 203.
Outcome
The court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a subclass of employees who allegedly received their final pay late. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify two subclasses of employees who allegedly did not receive all of their final pay and accrued vacation. The court denied defendant's motion to strike the supplemental declaration of plaintiffs' expert, but it granted defendant's motion for leave to file a surreply.