Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1897021.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:51:11+00:00

Document:
ABBOTT LABORATORIES et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY, Respondent; THE PEOPLE ex rel. TONY RACKAUCKAS, as District Attorney, etc., Real Party in Interest.
Kirkland & Ellis and Michael John Shipley, Jay P. Lefkowitz, Adam T. Humann and Yosef Mahmood for Petitioners Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp., Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Munger, Tolles & Olson and Jeffrey I. Weinberger, Stuart N. Senator and Blanca F. Young for Petitioners AbbVie Inc. and Abbott Laboratories. Horvitz & Levy and Jeremy Brooks Rosen, Stanley H. Chen, Janet Y. Galeria, for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America; Heather Lynn Wallace, for California Chamber of Commerce as Amici Curiae on behalf of Petitioners. Tony Rackauckas, Orange County District Attorney, Joseph D'Agostino, Assistant District Attorney, Kelly A. Ernby, Deputy District Attorney; Robinson Calcagnie Inc. and Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Kevin F. Calcagnie on behalf of Real Party in Interest. Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, Yvonne R. Mere, Owen J. Clements, Deputy City Attorneys, for the City and County of San Francisco; Michael Feuer, City Attorney, Monica D. Castillo, Deputy City Attorney, for the City of Los Angeles; Mara W. Elliot, City Attorney, Kathryn Turner, Kristine Lorenz, Deputy City Attorneys for the City of San Diego; Richard Doyle, City Attorney, Nora Frimann, Assistant City Attorney for the City of San Jose; James R. Williams, County Counsel, Greta S. Hansen, Danny Chou, Assistants County Counsel, Laura S. Trice, Deputy County Counsel, for Santa Clara County; Jennifer Henning for California State Association of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest. Law Office of Valerie T. McGinty and Valerie T. McGinty for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Nicklas A. Akers, Assistant Attorney General, Michele R. Van Gelderen, Daniel A. Olivas and David A. Jones, Deputy Attorneys General for California Attorney General as Amicus Curiae. Mark Louis Zahner of the California District Attorneys Association and Thomas Atlee Papageorge of the San Diego District Attorney's Office, for the California District Attorneys Association as Amici Curiae.
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 authority to prosecute civil actions absent specific legislative authorization, and neither the Government Code, nor Business and Professions Code section 17204, authorize the district attorney of a single county to seek statewide penalties for alleged UCL violations. The California Attorney General has filed an amicus brief on the question, as have the California District Attorneys Association; the City Attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, and San Jose, Santa Clara County Counsel, and California State Association of Counties (collectively the city attorneys); the United States and California Chambers of Commerce (collectively Chambers of Commerce); and the Consumer Attorneys of California.
We grant the petition. The California Constitution designates the Attorney General the “chief law officer of the State” (Cal. Const., art. V, § 13), and consistent with this constitutional provision, the Attorney General “has charge, as attorney, of all legal matters in which the State is interested” (Gov. Code, § 12511) and also “shall ․ prosecute or defend all causes to which the State ․ is a party in his or her official capacity.” (Gov. Code, § 12512.) The District Attorney, on the other hand, is a county officer whose territorial jurisdiction and power is limited accordingly. Though section 17204 confers standing on district attorneys to sue in the name of the people of the State of California, it cannot constitutionally or reasonably be interpreted to grant the District Attorney power to seek and recover restitution and civil penalty relief for violations occurring outside the jurisdiction of the county in which he was elected. A contrary conclusion would permit the District Attorney to usurp the Attorney General's statewide authority and impermissibly bind his sister district attorneys, precluding them from pursuing their own relief. Thus, in the absence of written consent by the Attorney General and other county district attorneys, the District Attorney must confine such monetary recovery to violations occurring within the county he serves.
Petitioners are companies or wholly-owned subsidiaries involved in the manufacture, distribution or sale of pharmaceuticals or generic prescription drugs, including the prescription drug Niaspan. In October 2016, the Orange County District Attorney, representing “the People of the State of California” in association with private counsel, filed a complaint for violations of the UCL, alleging that petitioners either entered into agreements or otherwise engaged in conduct that prevented other generic manufacturers from launching their own Niaspan equivalent, causing purchasers and others in California to overpay for the drug. The District Attorney filed a first amended complaint, the operative pleading, in December 2016. In part, the operative complaint alleges that “[e]ach sale of Niaspan in violation of Section 17200 constitutes a separate violation,” and purchasers in California sustained substantial losses in the form of overcharges on each sale based on the petitioners' unlawful and unfair business practices, which violated federal, state, and/or common laws, including federal and state antitrust laws. It alleges that “the violations of California law complained of herein resulted in damages to consumers of Niaspan in California, including in the County of Orange.” In addition to an injunction, the complaint seeks an order that petitioners pay restitution of any money acquired through the unlawful and unfair business practices, and civil penalties of up to $2,500 for each violation under sections 17206 and 17206.1.
Petitioners thereafter moved to strike from the operative complaint “all claims for restitution and civil penalties based on conduct outside the territorial jurisdiction of Orange County.”2 Relying on People v. Hy-Lond Enterprises, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 734, 751 (Hy-Lond) as well as California v. M & P Investments (E.D.Cal. 2002) 213 F.Supp.2d 1208 (M & P Investments), petitioners argued a district attorney's enforcement authority under the UCL was limited to the geographic boundaries of the county for which the district attorney was elected, but contrary to that restriction, the District Attorney sought to recover for overcharges paid by “California Niaspan users, their insurers, public healthcare providers and other government payors ․” Petitioners sought to strike several words and phrases from the complaint referring to pursuing relief across California.
In opposition, the District Attorney argued Hy-Lond was inapposite as it involved a settlement and stipulated injunction that purported to bind the real “client,” which was the state Department of Health, and immunize the defendant as to future actions involving future violations of law. He argued that when statewide business practices are at issue, the California Constitution did not prevent the Legislature from giving district attorneys statewide enforcement authority and the ability to obtain statewide relief, which the UCL's plain language indicated the Legislature had done. The District Attorney argued the California Constitution did not restrict his duties and authority under the UCL to obtain statewide relief.
During arguments on the motion, the trial court stated its view that the appellate court in Hy-Lond did not address the Napa County district attorney's ability in that case to recover statewide civil penalties; in its opinion, Hy-Lond addressed only whether the district attorney could bind the Attorney General in a settlement relating to misconduct spanning more counties than just Napa County. The court explained that if a settlement occurred in the present case, the Attorney General would be permitted to appear and be heard. The court also questioned Hy-Lond's reliance on Singh v. Superior Court (1919) 44 Cal.App. 64 in which the Court of Appeal pointed out a district attorney's powers were “limited territorially to the county for which he has been elected,” but rejected an argument that a district attorney was not an executive officer or officer of the state for purposes of a bribery statute and dismissed a writ seeking to enjoin proceedings on an indictment. (Id. at pp. 66-68.) The court denied petitioners' motion to strike.
Petitioners sought writ relief by this petition. We issued an order to show cause and stayed further proceedings in the superior court pending further order.
The District Attorney fails to point out that on September 11, 2017, before we issued the order to show cause in this matter, petitioners submitted their certificate of service on the Attorney General of their petition and letter brief in reply to the District Attorney's informal opposition. The Attorney General thereafter sought leave to file an amicus brief and has filed that brief. In view of these developments, we retain power and find good cause to sua sponte retroactively extend the time for providing the notice required under section 17209. (Accord, Black v. Financial Freedom Senior Funding Corp. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 917, 924, fn. 6; see also Californians for Population Stabilization v. Hewlett-Packard Co. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 273, 284 [section 17209's requirements are not jurisdictional], overruled on other grounds in Cortez v. Purolator Air Filtration Products Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 163, 175-177.) Because the Attorney General has received adequate notice and is not prejudiced in any way, there is no basis to sustain a demurrer to the petition on this procedural ground.
“ '[T]he ripeness doctrine is primarily bottomed on the recognition that judicial decisionmaking is best conducted in the context of an actual set of facts so that the issues will be framed with sufficient definiteness to enable the court to make a decree finally disposing of the controversy.' ” (Vandermost v. Bowen (2012) 53 Cal.4th 421, 452.) Here, the cited remarks do not support the District Attorney's assertion that the court did not rule on the issue presented.4 By denying petitioners' motion to strike the broad allegations as to violations of the UCL for “purchases of, and reimbursements for, the prescription drug Niaspan occurring in California,” the court necessarily determined that the District Attorney in its UCL action was permitted to pursue restitution and civil penalties for violations occurring throughout California, including outside the geographical limits of Orange County. The issues were sufficiently framed in the motion, are definite and concrete, and the court's ruling is ripe for judicial review.
The District Attorney next contends petitioners have not established irreparable harm to support extraordinary writ review of the “amount of penalties to be awarded in this case.” (Some capitalization omitted.) We reject the premise of this argument, namely that the petition at hand challenges merely the “amount” or sum of the award, as opposed to the District Attorney's power to collect penalties from sales or reimbursements occurring outside the limits of Orange County. We also reject the District Attorney's argument that because the pleading of civil penalties is legally authorized by the UCL, the remedies are not “irrelevant, false, or improper matter” subject to a motion to strike. The first amended complaint did not simply plead entitlement to civil penalties, a legally proper remedy in the abstract, but specifically sought such penalties for sales, purchases and reimbursements—alleged to constitute violations of “federal, state, statutory and/or common laws”—occurring throughout California. As stated, a motion to strike is proper where petitioners challenge the scope of UCL recovery sought by the District Attorney's pleading.
The foregoing constitutional and statutory provisions demonstrate that in civil matters, as in criminal matters, a district attorney lacks authority to function outside his or her county jurisdiction absent the consent of the district attorney of the other county. Even when a district attorney acts in a matter within the jurisdiction of the superior court, he or she is subject to oversight and direct supervision by the Attorney General, the state's chief law enforcement officer obligated to ensure the uniform and adequate enforcement of state law.
We have no difficulty applying Hy-Lond's principles to bar a district attorney's unilateral effort to seek restitution and civil penalties for UCL violations occurring outside his or her own county jurisdiction. To be sure, the UCL's scope is broad; it reaches any unlawful business act or practice committed in California. (See § 17200 [“As used in this chapter, unfair competition shall mean and include any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice”]; People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transp., Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 772, 783; Sullivan v. Oracle Corp. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 1191, 1208.) And the law, as stated above, expressly confers standing on district attorneys to bring civil law enforcement actions in the People's name when prosecuting UCL violations. But that grant of standing, as in criminal actions, cannot reasonably or constitutionally be interpreted as conferring statewide authority or jurisdiction to recover such monetary remedies beyond the county the district attorney serves, or restricting the Attorney General's constitutional power to obtain relief on behalf of the entire state. (Accord, Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310, 336 [refusing to “conflate[ ] the issue of standing with the issue of the remedies to which a party may be entitled”].) Thus, the law does not grant the District Attorney in this case authority to unilaterally pursue statewide monetary relief in the name of the state, as such a grant would permit the Legislature to usurp the Attorney General's constitutional authority as the state's chief law officer, and allow the district attorney of one county to impermissibly compromise and bind the Attorney General and the district attorneys of other counties. Under a contrary interpretation, a judgment in this case would bind the state under principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, and prevent the Attorney General and other district attorneys from seeking further relief for violations occurring in their own communities.11 Both the constitution and Hy-Lond countenance this result.
The District Attorney argues Hy-Lond is inapposite because it involves the enforceability of a settlement and judgment in which the defendant received immunity and restrictions were placed on the powers of the Department of Health relating to nursing homes; he maintains the decision is limited to its unusual facts and cannot impede the efforts of district attorneys in protecting California consumers.12 The District Attorney suggests another authority, People v. Mendez (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1773, more directly holds that a district attorney has power to bind the state contrary to Hy-Lond, as a UCL treatise author has suggested. In Mendez, the Court of Appeal declined to estop the Attorney General from challenging a stipulation in a criminal action entered into by a district attorney, who was under a significant misapprehension of the law. (Id. at p. 1784; see People v. Ford (2015) 61 Cal.4th 282, 289.) In so holding, Mendez recognized that the State would ordinarily be bound by the stipulation, since a criminal action is prosecuted in the name of the People of the State of California as a party. (Id. at p. 1783.) But the issue in that case was estoppel and the court declined to apply the doctrine; to the extent Mendez says anything about a district attorney's power to bind the state, it stands for the unremarkable proposition that in criminal cases, the state is the party regardless of whether it is represented by the district attorney or the Attorney General. It says nothing about a district attorney's authority—extraterritorially or otherwise—to bring civil actions generally or under the UCL specifically and does not impact our reading of Hy-Lond.
We reject the District Attorney's assertion that he has a broad “legislative mandate” to seek restitution on behalf of individuals throughout the state. The District Attorney cites People ex rel. Bill Lockyer v. Fremont Life Ins. Co. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 508, 531, and the language of section 17203, giving courts discretion to restore money or property acquired by means of unfair competition to “any person ․” Lockyer was an action brought by the Attorney General against an insurance company, in which the trial court ordered the defendant to make an offer of classwide or “across-the-board” restitution to each nonsettling California consumer who had purchased a policy from the defendant under certain circumstances. (Id. at p. 531.) The Court of Appeal upheld the restitution order against claims it was excessive, unfair, unnecessary, and unsupported by proof that all consumers were deprived of money or property. (Id. at pp. 531-532.) Lockyer and the other authorities relied upon by the District Attorney, which also involve actions brought either solely by the Attorney General (People v. Superior Court (Jayhill), supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 286) or by the Attorney General in conjunction with a county district attorney (People v. Pacific Land Research Co., supra, 20 Cal.3d 10, 14), say nothing about the extent of a local prosecutor's enforcement authority, and none of the cases suggest that a local district attorney's authority is coextensive with that of the Attorney General, or that if the district attorney alone had brought the action, the same scope of restitution would be proper.
Finally, the construction urged by the District Attorney would incentivize public prosecutors, acting in their respective county's financial self-interest, to withhold pertinent information from their sister agencies as to the scope of violations, then “race[ ] [their colleagues] to the courthouse” (State ex rel. Harris v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, supra, 39 Cal.4th at p. 1232) in hopes of obtaining all of the civil penalties that would otherwise be deposited in those other county treasuries. The Legislature reasonably could decide to avoid such a scheme, and there is no indication it intended this result.
Our foregoing conclusions are not broad policy pronouncements; we simply interpret the UCL in the light of constitutional and statutory jurisdictional limitations so as to avoid doubts concerning the UCL's validity.
Let a writ issue directing the respondent court to vacate its order denying the motion to strike of petitioners Abbott Laboratories, AbbVie Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Duramed Pharmaceuticals Sales Corp., and to enter a new and different order striking the allegations by which the Orange County District Attorney seeks statewide monetary relief under the UCL. The stay issued will be vacated when the opinion is final as to this court.
One needn't have been a justice of the Court of Appeal for long—and I have not—to appreciate the prudential institutional limitations on an intermediate appellate court. Our primary role is to review 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 are necessary to the decision we are required to render.
I believe the majority's decision to issue writ relief in this case violates each of these salutary guidelines. The majority then compound these judgmental errors by deciding the ill-considered legal issue incorrectly 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.
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 Law. (UCL;§ 17200 et seq.) This statewide practice has allegedly harmed consumers in Orange County and throughout California in a similar fashion. The parties agree that should the court ultimately find the allegations of the complaint have been proved, it has the authority to issue statewide injunctive relief. But for a defendant in a state the size of California, a law enforcement action alleging a statewide unlawful business practice and seeking monetary relief creates, at least potentially, a substantial economic exposure. To the extent law enforcement can be Balkanized and monetary relief limited to local jurisdictions—especially early in the litigation—a defendant's “management” of the exposure is greatly facilitated. It is hardly surprising, then, that defendants in this case sought to craft a motion to “strike claims for restitution and civil penalties to the extent that those are not limited to Orange County.
Even if the complaint were otherwise, what the District Attorney requests in terms of civil penalties and restitution is largely irrelevant, for it is the court that ultimately decides the proper scope of monetary relief. It is well settled that the court can award restitution even in the absence of such a request by the public prosecutor. (People v. Pacific Land Research Co. (1977) 20 Cal.3d 10, 19 [Even “if the People had not sought restitution ․ the trial court could have ordered restitution on its own motion at the conclusion of the action on the merits.”].) Why, then, do we reach out at the pleading stage to entertain a writ petition as to a purported request for relief that is unnecessary to the complaint?
“Aways [sic] down the road,” if I may be so bold to suggest, would be the proper time to address the proper scope of monetary relief in this case. Specifically, if and when the trial court decides to award restitution to consumers outside of Orange County or civil penalties based entirely on acts occurring in other parts of the state, that will be the time when this issue is squarely presented. At the outset of the case—when the issue is not raised by the pleadings and was not decided by the trial court—is indisputably not the proper time.
It is well settled that an appellate court will review rulings on pleadings by writ only “rarely” (Taylor v. Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 894) and “with extreme reluctance” (Babb v. Superior Court (1971) 3 Cal.3d 841, 851). While “writs are occasionally used to provide expedited interlocutory review of pleading issues, some extraordinary reason for this kind of priority treatment must appear.” (Burrus v. Municipal Court (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 233, 236, italics added.) These words of caution are particularly applicable to a motion to strike that does not challenge the plaintiff's ability to plead a valid claim, but merely seeks to edit the language of the complaint in a manner that better suits the defendants' tactical purposes. Neither defendants nor the majority offer anything approaching an “extraordinary reason” to justify this court's decision to intervene at the pleading stage.
The propriety of extraordinary writ review aside, the decision to prematurely intervene in this case has unnecessarily placed this court in the middle of a jurisdictional turf spat between public prosecutors. In doing so the majority attempt to construct a solution in search of a problem. The alleged “problem” here is an overzealous district attorney who seeks to recover (1) restitution on behalf of residents of other counties, and (2) civil penalties based on business practices that have no connection to the district attorney's local jurisdiction. Apparently, this bothers the Attorney General, who wishes to limit and control all litigation involving statewide unlawful business practices, and perhaps other district attorneys in other counties, who may view the actions of the Orange County District Attorney as “poaching” on their ability to recover civil penalties that would otherwise flow into their own county's treasury.
Business and Professions Code section 17204 broadly permits UCL enforcement actions to be “prosecuted ․ by the Attorney General or a district attorney ․” Either way, the action is pursued “in the name of the people of the State of California,” just as in criminal cases. (§ 17204.) Section 17203 permits the court, ancillary to its injunctive power, “to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of” the unlawful or unfair practice. (§ 17203, italics added.) Section 17206 similarly authorizes the court to award a civil penalty for each UCL violation, “recover[able] in a civil action brought ․ by the Attorney General [or] by any district attorney ․” (§ 17206, subd. (a).) Nothing in any of these statutes limits a county district attorney to prosecuting UCL actions on behalf of citizens of in that particular county. Nor does anything in the UCL restrict a district attorney to recovering restitution on behalf of only county residents.
As justification for reaching out at the pleading stage to prematurely decide a major public policy issue not squarely presented or addressed by the trial court, the majority allude to vague notions of interference with the Attorney General's constitutional authority. They suggest that if a local district attorney can seek restitution on behalf of residents of other counties, or civil penalties attributable to violations in other counties, this would allow the district attorney “to impermissibly compromise and bind the Attorney General and the district attorneys of other counties,” preventing them “from seeking further relief for violations occurring in their own communities.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 30.) They then purport to interpret the relevant sections of the UCL to avoid a constitutional issue. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 31.) Respectfully, the majority rely on a phantom constitutional concern to craft a cure that is worse than even the perceived disease.
The UCL is an exceedingly broad remedial statute designed to encourage multiple avenues of enforcement. (See Kasky v. Nike, Inc. (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 949–950.) Indeed, a district attorney can prosecute a UCL claim based even on alleged violations of a statute that provides a different government agency with the sole authority to bring enforcement actions. (People v. McKale (1979) 25 Cal.3d 626, 632–633.) And as the majority recognize, “the civil remedies of the [UCL] were enacted because criminal remedies were too often inadequate to protect the public, especially where corporate defendants were concerned.” (People v. E.W.A.P. Inc. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 315, 321.) Pursuing litigation against corporate defendants is expensive, and the Legislature was doubtless aware that both financial and political considerations may sometimes discourage a public prosecutor from undertaking such a case. Consistent with the UCL's broad remedial purposes and the perceived need for vigorous enforcement, there is nothing unconstitutional about the Legislature's decision to permit and encourage multiple public prosecutors with overlapping lines of authority on the theory that more enforcement in this context is better than less.
Accordingly, there is no practical risk that a local district attorney will “compromise and bind” the Attorney General or district attorneys from other counties. Even if the Attorney General does not elect to formally intervene at the outset and take over a case, it can monitor and take appropriate action if and when the prosecuting district attorney proposes to settle.6 Similarly district attorneys in other affected counties could consult with the Attorney General or ask the court to be heard as to any eventual settlement.
The majority's heavy reliance on People v. Hy-Lond Enterprises, Inc. (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 734 (Hy-Lond) is significantly misplaced. In that case, the Napa County District Attorney brought a UCL action against the operator of numerous skilled nursing facilities located throughout the state, only one of which was in Napa. Restitution was not at issue, and no one challenged the District Attorney's ability to seek civil penalties for violations occurring outside of Napa County.
The issue in the case involved the scope of a stipulated settlement between the District Attorney and the defendant. In exchange for general injunctive relief (i.e., comply with applicable laws in the future) and payment of civil penalties, the settlement made the Napa County District Attorney the “exclusive government agency” for enforcing the injunction. (Hy-Lond, supra, 93 Cal.App.3d at p. 741, fn. 1.) It further precluded anyone acting on behalf of the State of California from prosecuting any UCL action against defendant “for alleged violations of any acts covered by the injunction.” (Id. at p. 741, fn. 2.) It also purported to bar the State or any state administrative agency from taking any action to suspend or revoke defendant's license based on alleged acts referred to in the complaint. (Ibid.) If the stipulation were enforced, neither the state Attorney General nor relevant state administrative agencies nor district attorneys in other counties could take any action against the defendant based on either past or future law violations so long as the injunction remained in place.
Not surprisingly, the Hy-Lond court concluded that the Napa County District Attorney exceeded his authority in agreeing to the settlement—and the court erred in entering a judgment incorporating the settlement terms—because “an injunction cannot be granted to prevent the execution of a public statute by officers of the law for a public benefit.” (Hy-Lond, supra, 93 Cal.App.3d at p. 753.) The problem was in limiting enforcement as to future violations. (See Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com (1976) 17 Cal.3d 785, 800 [“it is settled that the government may not contract away its right to exercise the police power in the future”].) In other words, said the Hy-Lond court, “the district attorney has purported to stipulate to restraints which the court could not properly impose.” (Hy-Lond, supra, 93 Cal.App.3d at p. 753.) Here, the Orange County District Attorney hasn't offered to stipulate to anything, and the court hasn't proposed to approve any stipulation. No one has suggested limiting the power of the Attorney General or any district attorney to do anything, in the future or otherwise. Any musings by the Hy-Lond court about territorial limitations on the authority of the county district attorney are just that—musings.
The resounding theme so far is that we should not be deciding anything about a local district attorney's authority to request restitution and civil penalties attributable to victims and conduct outside the county. The issues the defendants seek to frame by means of their motion to strike are not squarely—or even unsquarely—presented. And certainly, there are no exceptional circumstances that warrant a departure from the general rule that we do not review undeveloped legal issues at the pleading stage of a lawsuit.
Well-tested principles underlie the traditional reticence of intermediate appellate courts to engage in interlocutory writ review of trial court procedural rulings such as the one at issue in this case. (See Omaha Indemnity Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1266, 1273.) Rarely do those principles so uniformly counsel against issuance of writ relief as they do here. In choosing to ignore these sound prudential considerations, the majority reach out to unnecessarily resolve—incorrectly in my view—an internecine dispute among public prosecutors, to the ultimate detriment of the “public” we are all charged with serving.
I would deny the petition.
1. Statutory references are to the Business and Professions Code unless otherwise specified.
2. Petitioners also filed a demurrer based on the statute of limitations. That demurrer and the trial court's ruling overruling it are not at issue in this proceeding.
4. The record shows that when the court stated “we are not worried about damages in a demurrer, so I think your concerns are a little premature,” and “[w]hat kind of remedies plaintiff may be entitled to down the line, there's no reason to reach that now,” it was referring to petitioners' demurrer on statute of limitations grounds and their arguments as to the continuous accrual doctrine, under which a series of wrongs may be viewed as each triggering its own limitations period. (See Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1192.) The other cited remarks occurred when the court informed the parties that if they reached a settlement, the Attorney General “is going to know about it” and “have a voice.” The court remarked: “It seems to me that you would all be better served if you recognized that and include the AG—If, indeed, we are looking at civil penalties and what you want to do. But that's kind of a ways down the road.” These remarks in no way suggest the court declined to reach the issue presented by petitioners' motion to strike.
10. Petitioners also rely on the federal district court's decision in M & P Investments, supra, 213 F.Supp.2d 1208, in which the court, citing Hy-Lond, stated “a city attorney's authority is limited to the geographical boundaries of the constituency which he or she represents.” (M & P Investments, at p. 1216, citing City of Oakland v. Brock (1937) 8 Cal.2d 639, 641.) In M & P Investments, the district court considered a city attorney's authority to abate a public nuisance under Code of Civil Procedure section 731 “in the name of the people of the State of California” and held the statute did not elevate him to the status of a State agent with full authority commensurate with such a position. (Id. at p. 1213 [citing People v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 494, 500 for the proposition that “ 'the only authority given to the city council of Manhattan Beach or its city attorney by [Code of Civil Procedure] section 731 ․ is to bring an action to abate a public nuisance existing within that city' “].) But the statute at issue expressly limited the authority to bring a civil action under its provision to a “ 'district attorney of any county in which such nuisance exists ․ ' “ (M & P Investments, at p. 1212, fn. 11, quoting Code Civ. Proc, § 731.) We need not rely on M & P Investments to reach our conclusions.
12. Amici city attorneys likewise argue that Hy-Lond is a narrow decision that does not bar a district attorney from seeking statewide remedies. They, and apparently our dissenting colleague, characterize its discussion of a district attorney's geographic limitations as dicta, and any extension to actions for monetary relief as a distortion of its ruling. We disagree for the reasons stated in this opinion.
13. Despite this argument, the District Attorney has neither summarized nor provided any legislative history on the issue. Nor have petitioners presented us with any legislative history materials.
14. Whether the UCL empowers a district attorney to obtain statewide injunctive relief was not a subject of petitioners' motion to strike below, and it is not before us. We do not address the issue of injunctive relief or the attendant civil penalties authorized in section 17207 for violations of UCL injunctions.
2. The majority assert that the District Attorney's complaint “specifically sought [civil] penalties for sales occurring throughout California” (maj. opn., ante, at p. 12), but nowhere specify where in the complaint they find this “specific” request.
3. Significantly, although it takes no formal position on defendants' motion to strike, the Attorney General's amicus brief agrees that allegations in the complaint regarding defendants' statewide misconduct may be entirely proper.
4. The fact that this comment was made in the context of argument on the demurrer rather than the motion to strike (maj. opn., ante, at p. 11, fn. 4) hardly changes the substance of the statement. The court was clearly stating that questions regarding the scope of monetary relief would be addressed at a later date, not now.
5. The majority opinion inexplicably concludes that this statement “in no way suggest[s] the court declined to reach the issue presented by petitioners' motion to strike.” (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 11, fn. 4.) I see no way to read the statement other than as indicating the court was not ruling on the proper scope of monetary relief. And even assuming the statement was in some way ambiguous, why would we reach out at the pleading stage to issue an extraordinary writ correcting an implication that might or might not have been intended by the trial judge?
I CONCUR: HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

References: v. 
 § 13
 § 12511
 § 12512
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 17200
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 17204
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 731