Levy v. Allergan USA CA2/4

Filed 12/18/13 Levy v. Allergan USA CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

MAURICE LEVY, M.D., B243941

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC469584) v.

ALLERGAN USA, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court for Los Angeles County, Holly E. Kendig, Judge. Affirmed. Jance M. Weberman for Plaintiff and Appellant. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Jeffrey H. Reeves and Jeffrey T. Thomas for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Maurice Levy, M.D., appeals from a judgment of dismissal in favor of defendant Allergan USA, Inc. following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend.1 We affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND This appeal arises in a lawsuit Dr. Levy filed against Allergan, Ariel Peretz,2 and several companies owned and/or operated by Peretz. Viewed in a light most favorable to Dr. Levy, the allegations of the operative first amended complaint boil down to this: without Dr. Levy’s knowledge or consent, Peretz used Dr. Levy’s medical license over the course of several years to purchase large quantities of prescription medications from Allergan, which Peretz then sold at a profit, and Allergan, which knew or should have known that Dr. Levy did not authorize the purchases, conspired with Peretz so it could make a profit from the sales. The complaint purports to set out eight causes of action against Allergan based on those allegations, for breach of contract, constructive fraud, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud and violate state regulations for sale of prescription medications, unfair business practices, unjust enrichment, negligence, and accounting. We need not describe each of the causes of action in detail for the purpose of this appeal. Suffice to say that, as to each cause of action (except the claim for an accounting), the complaint does not describe the injury Dr. Levy suffered as a result of the alleged wrongdoing, but appears to allege that he is