City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 7 8 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN Case No. 18-cv-07591-CRB FRANCISCO, et al., 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON MODE OF TRIAL 10 v. 11 PURDUE PHARMA L.P., et al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 The Court asked the parties to brief whether the Court must try the remaining claims—for 15 public nuisance (Cal. Civ. Code §§3479-3480), violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law 16 (“UCL”) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.), and violation of California’s False Advertising 17 Law (“FAL”) (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, et seq.)—by judge or jury. Dkt. 322. The parties 18 both complied, see dkt. 386, 388, 395, 396, and the Court has carefully reviewed the parties’ 19 submissions. 20 The Court concludes that the UCL and FAL claims each necessitate a jury trial. See Tull 21 v. United States, 481 U.S. 412, 423 (1987); Nationwide Biweekly Admin., Inc. v. Superior Court 22 of Alameda County, 9 Cal 5th 279, 326 (2020). The Court takes under submission the question of 23 whether the public nuisance claim necessitates a jury trial. The Court plans to empanel a jury to 24 hear evidence on all the claims and will decide at the conclusion of trial whether the jury’s 25 // 26 // 27 1 determination with respect to the public nuisance claim is binding or advisory. 3 Dated: January 12, 2021 xo CHARLES R. BREYER 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

© 15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28