Gamestop v. Superior Court, No. E068701 (D4d2 Aug. 22, 2018)
The Riverside and Shasta County DAs sued a secondhand video game Store in Riverside Superior Court for violating the Unfair Competition Law. They claim that the Store’s conduct was “unlawful” under the UCL because the Store violated the Secondhand Dealers’ Law, which regulates pawn shops and other resellers of personal property to prevent them from being used to fence stolen goods.
Store moved to change venue under Code of Civil Procedure § 394(a), which permits a foreign corporate defendant to transfer an action to a neutral county when sued by a city, county, or local agency. But according to the Court of Appeal, the problem with that argument is that the UCL permits a DA to bring a UCL action on behalf of “the People of the State of California.” Thus, even if the DA’s authority is limited to prosecuting UCL violations in his or her home county—a question that is currently pending before the California Supreme Court—the State of California is nonetheless the plaintiff, so § 394(a) doesn’t facially apply.
Writ denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment