Appellate court split on jurisdictional limits for district attorneys

A state appellate court ruling in a pharmaceutical price fixing case has limited of the power county district attorneys have to bring claims on behalf of citizens outside of their jurisdictions.

Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas sued a group of pharmaceutical companies for alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, seeking to punish the companies for their conduct throughout the state.

In a split decision, a 4th District Court of Appeal panel ruled last week that he overstepped his authority. Abbott Laboratories et al. v. The Superior Court of Orange County, 2018 DJDAR 5247.

State Attorney General Xavier Becerra's office weighed in on the case, asking the appellate court to limit the authority of district attorneys to bring statewide civil litigation.

Rackauckas contended he should be able to bring claims for restitution and civil penalties, even for actions the pharmaceutical companies took outside of Orange County.

The panel ruled that Rackauckas was wandering into the territory of the state attorney general by bringing claims on behalf of citizens throughout California.

Justice Terry B. O'Rourke wrote in the opinion that a district attorney "is a county officer whose territorial jurisdiction and power is limited accordingly."

O'Rourke wrote that a district attorney is allowed to bring suits "in the name of the people of the State of California" but isn't granted the power to "seek and recover restitution and civil penalty relief for violations occurring outside the jurisdiction of the county in which he was elected."

He reasoned that allowing the district attorney to bring a statewide case would not only step on the toes of the attorney general but would also pre-empt district attorneys in other counties who may want to bring their own cases involving the same conduct in their jurisdiction.

Justice William Dato disagreed, writing in the dissent that an intermediate appellate court shouldn't take it upon itself to decide such fundamental legal questions that impact the entire state.

"We generally avoid broad legal policy pronouncements, leaving that to the Supreme Court and the Legislature," Dato wrote.

The justice contended that the majority was splitting hairs in its analysis because the superior court has the power to make a statewide ruling, meaning district attorneys have always been able to bring cases that could impact parts of the state outside their jurisdiction.

"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," Dato wrote.

Rackauckas can appeal the decision or bring a more limited case against the pharmaceutical companies if he can identify violations occurring within the county he serves.

Michelle Van Der Linden, a spokeswoman for the Orange County district attorney's office, said Tuesday that the agency was reviewing the decision and hadn't made a decision on what its next step would be.