Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-md-02521/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-md-02521-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL 

WORKERS LOCAL 1776 & 

PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS HEALTH 

AND WELFARE FUND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TEIKOKU PHARMA USA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-md-02521-WHO 

TENTATIVE RULINGS FOR APRIL 22, 

2015 HEARING

In order for the parties to focus their oral arguments on specific state law claims, below are 

my tentative rulings on the issues in dispute.

Motion to Dismiss Claims Asserted by EPPs

1. Utah – DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, pursuant to the EPPs’ request.

2. Massachusetts – Section 9 Claim of Plaintiff Galloto, DISMISSED WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND, to allege that defendants do not maintain a place of business or keep assets 

in Massachusetts.

Motion to Dismiss Claims Asserted by GEHA

A. Antitrust and Consumer Protection Claims

1. Rhode Island antitrust claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The antitrust 

conduct occurred before the repealer statute passed.

2. Alaska consumer protection claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. GEHA 

cannot avoid Alaska’s failure to pass a repealer statute by relying on the more general consumer 

protection act. 

3. Massachusetts consumer protection claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

GEHA’s claim is properly considered a Section 11 claim, but barred because GEHA was acting in 

Case 3:14-md-02521-WHO Document 164 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 4
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“trade or commerce” when it paid for the Lidoderm patches.

4. District of Columbia consumer protection claim - DISMISSED WITH 

PREJUDICE. GEHA is not a consumer under the statute.

5. Maine consumer protection claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Because (i) 

no authority supports a finding that GEHA is a “consumer,” (ii) antitrust conduct which results in 

higher prices is not actionable under the statute; and (iii) no authority supports GEHA’s argument 

that defendants’ conduct before the PTO could be considered “deceptive” conduct under the 

statute.

6. Montana consumer protection claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. No 

Montana authority supports a finding that GEHA is a consumer under the statute.

7. Pennsylvania consumer protection claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

While under the AFSCME case, GEHA could be considered a “consumer” for purposes of the 

statute; GEHA’s allegations of deceptive conduct cannot support a claim that defendants created a 

“likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding” on the part of consumers.

8. Arkansas consumer protection claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In 

absence of authority from Arkansas, the antitrust and PTO fraud allegations do not amount to 

unconscionable, false, or deceptive acts in violation of the Arkansas statute.

9. Idaho consumer protection claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The 

conduct at issue must be “directed to consumers” which was not the case here.

10. Michigan consumer protection claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The 

conduct at issue is not “fraudulent or deceptive” conduct directed to the public.

11. Minnesota consumer protection claims – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In 

absence of authority from Minnesota under either the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act or 

the Consumer Fraud Act, the antitrust and PTO fraud allegations do not create “a likelihood of 

confusion or of misunderstanding” to consumers or other fraudulent conduct that is relied on by 

consumers.

12. Oregon consumer protection claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In 

absence of authority, that the antitrust and PTO fraud conduct alleged cannot be considered 

Case 3:14-md-02521-WHO Document 164 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 4
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

“unconscionable” under the statute.

13. South Dakota consumer protection claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

There is no evidence that affirmative misrepresentations made by defendants in their negotiations 

with each other or the PTO were passed along to consumers.

14. West Virginia consumer protection claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. In 

absence of West Virginia authority, the antitrust and PTO fraud allegations are not actionable.

15. New York consumer protection claim – motion to dismiss DENIED. The 

allegations that GEHA paid pharmacies in New York for Lidoderm patches are sufficient to state a 

claim.

16. North Carolina consumer protection claim – motion to dismiss DENIED. The 

allegations that GEHA suffered an injury in North Carolina and that defendants’ products were 

sold in North Carolina sufficient to state a claim.

B. Unjust Enrichment Claims

I am not inclined to change my view that for states that have not passed Illinois Brick

repealers, GEHA cannot assert unjust enrichment claims. That would be an end-run around 

Illinois Brick, unless authority from the state at issue provides otherwise.

Also, to the extent that GEHA has been unable to state an indirect purchaser claim under a 

state’s antitrust and consumer protection statutes, GEHA cannot attempt to state an autonomous 

unjust enrichment claim instead.

1. Alabama unjust enrichment claim – motion to dismiss DENIED. GEHA’s 

allegations are sufficient to show a direct line between the alleged overcharges GEHA paid and 

monies received by defendants.

2. Arizona unjust enrichment claim – motion to dismiss DENIED. GEHA has 

adequately alleged a traceable benefit to defendants from their co-payments of Lidoderm patches.

3. California unjust enrichment claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. I am not 

inclined to reconsider my prior ruling finding that California does not recognize an independent 

unjust enrichment cause of action.

4. District of Columbia unjust enrichment claim – motion to dismiss DENIED. 

Case 3:14-md-02521-WHO Document 164 Filed 04/21/15 Page 3 of 4
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

GEHA does not need to plead that it “directly” paid defendants a benefit under District of 

Columbia law.

5. Kansas unjust enrichment claim – motion to dismiss DENIED. GEHA’s 

allegations that it overpaid for Lidoderm patches sufficient to allege defendants received unjust 

benefit.

6. New York unjust enrichment claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. New 

York authority holds that indirect purchaser claims are “too attenuated” to state an unjust 

enrichment claim.

7. North Carolina unjust enrichment claim – motion to dismiss DENIED. GEHA 

does not need to allege that it paid defendants directly for Lidoderm patches. 

8. North Dakota unjust enrichment claim – DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 

Authority from North Dakota establishes that payment from plaintiff to defendant must be 

“direct,” and does not cover payments made by indirect purchasers.

9. Tennessee unjust enrichment claim – motion to dismiss DENIED. GEHA’s 

allegations that they paid inflated prices for Lidoderm patches and that it would be unjust to allow 

defendants to retain the excess payments are sufficient to state a claim.

Dated: April 21, 2015

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-md-02521-WHO Document 164 Filed 04/21/15 Page 4 of 4