Procedural Posture
Plaintiff retail pharmacies sued defendant pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleging violation of the Cartwright Act, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 16700 et seq., and California’s unfair competition law, Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq. The trial court granted the manufacturers’ motion for summary judgment. The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Review was granted.
Overview
The manufacturers argued that the pharmacies’ Cartwright Act claims were barred on the ground the pharmacies passed on any alleged overcharge to third parties and therefore did not suffer a compensable injury. The court held that under the Cartwright Act, as under federal law, generally no pass-on defense was permitted. Instead, in an antitrust price-fixing case, the presumptive measure of damages was the amount of the overcharge paid by the plaintiff. The court found that no exception to the general rule applied in this case. Accordingly, Los Angeles litigation lawyer it was error to grant summary judgment for the manufacturers on the basis of a pass-on defense. The pharmacies had standing to pursue their UCL claim. The pharmacies indisputably lost money, as required by Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17204, when they paid an allegedly illegal overcharge. The court declined to require the pharmacies prove compensable loss at the outset. The pharmacies’ claim for injunctive relief was sufficient to preclude summary judgment. The manufacturers identified no obstacle that would preclude the pharmacies from obtaining injunctive relief if they established the manufacturers were engaged in an unfair business practice.
Outcome
The appellate court’s judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
