Williamson v. Genentech, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs challenged Genentech’s sale of prescription drugs in single-dose vials under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The complaint alleged that using those vials resulted in wasted medicine.

The court had previously remanded the action because Andrew Williamson had not shown an injury sufficient to give him standing to sue in federal court. Williamson then joined Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City as a plaintiff, and Genentech removed the action under the Class Action Fairness Act. Genentech moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint, arguing that federal law preempted the claims, that California’s judicial-abstention doctrine applied, and that the complaint failed to state a claim.

While that motion was pending, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City voluntarily dismissed its claims. Williamson became the only remaining plaintiff. The court ordered the parties to explain why it should not again remand the action because Williamson lacked standing. Neither party responded.

Standing and jurisdiction

Federal courts must independently determine whether they have subject-matter jurisdiction, including whether the parties have standing. Standing requires an injury in fact that is concrete and particularized, fairly traceable to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be remedied by a favorable decision.

The court had previously determined that Williamson had not alleged facts supporting an inference that the amount he paid for Rituxan would have been lower if Genentech had offered lower-dose vials. Williamson continued to acknowledge that his out-of-pocket payment would not have changed even if less medicine had been wasted. The court therefore concluded that he had not suffered a concrete injury.

The court also rejected Williamson’s argument that he could still seek an injunction under California law. That remedy is available only to a person who suffered an injury in fact and lost money or property because of the alleged unfair competition. Williamson admitted that he had not lost money or property as a result of Genentech’s conduct. The court further held that he lacked standing to challenge the dosage amounts of drugs other than Rituxan because he alleged that he had been prescribed and had taken only Rituxan.

Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Corley held that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the action to the San Mateo County Superior Court. The opinion does not rule on Genentech’s pending motion to dismiss.