Class Action

Statement of issues on review in Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc.

By Kimberly A. Kralowec

The Supreme Court has posted its statement of issues on review in Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., no. S166435. The UCL-related issues are particularly interesting:

(1) When plaintiffs pay overcharges on goods or services as a result of the anticompetitive conduct of defendant sellers but recover the overcharges through increased prices at which the goods or services are sold to end users, may defendants assert a "pass-on" defense and argue that plaintiffs were not injured because they did not suffer financial loss as a result of the anticompetitive conduct? (2) Is restitution available under the Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200 et seq.) to plaintiffs who recovered from third persons the overcharges paid to defendants? (3) When plaintiffs recover from third persons the overcharges paid to defendants, have they suffered actual injury and lost money or property for purposes of establishing standing under the Unfair Competition Law, as amended by Proposition 64?

I've added Clayworth to my list of pending California Supreme Court cases of interest to UCL and class action practitioners. I also added Brinker to that list.

Full post as published by The UCL Practitioner on November 24, 2008 (boomark / email).