City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P.
- Charles Breyer
- 3:18-cv-07591
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma, Judge Breyer ordered a jury to hear the unfair-competition and false-advertising claims and deferred the nuisance-trial question.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the remaining public-nuisance, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law claims were affected by the court’s decision about how the trial would proceed.
What happened
City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P. concerned whether the remaining claims had to be tried before a judge or jury. The claims were for public nuisance, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, and violation of California’s False Advertising Law.
The court asked the parties to brief the trial format, and both parties submitted briefs. The opinion does not describe the parties’ specific arguments.
Judge Charles R. Breyer concluded that the unfair-competition and false-advertising claims require a jury trial. He deferred deciding whether the public-nuisance claim requires a jury, but planned to have a jury hear evidence on all claims and decide after trial whether its nuisance determination would be binding or advisory.
The detailed version
- City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P. · No. 3:18-cv-07591
- Charles Breyer
- Jan. 12, 2021
Background
The court issued an order addressing the mode of trial for the remaining claims. Those claims were for public nuisance under California Civil Code sections 3479–3480, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law under California Business and Professions Code section 17200 and following, and violation of California’s False Advertising Law under California Business and Professions Code section 17500 and following.
The court had asked the parties to brief whether the claims had to be tried by a judge or jury. Both parties submitted briefs, which the court reviewed. The opinion does not state the parties’ individual positions in detail.
Ruling
The court concluded that the Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law claims each necessitate a jury trial. The court took under submission the question whether the public-nuisance claim necessitates a jury trial.
Trial Plan and Disposition
The court planned to empanel a jury to hear evidence on all three claims. At the end of trial, the court would decide whether the jury’s determination regarding the public-nuisance claim would be binding or advisory. The order did not decide the merits of the claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.