State of Cal. ex rel. Wilson v. Superior Court CA2/1

Filed 11/20/15 State of Cal. ex rel. Wilson v. Superior Court CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ex rel. B264676 MICHAEL WILSON et al., (Los Angeles County Petitioners, Super. Ct. No. BC367873) v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CO., Real Party in Interest.

Petition for writ of mandate. Kenneth R. Freeman, Judge. Petition is granted. Waters Kraus & Paul, Michael L. Armitage, and Michael B. Gurien for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. No appearance for Intervenor California Department of Insurance. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, David C. Marcus, John J. Butts, Christopher T. Casamassima, Matthew D. Benedetto; Hogan Lovells US, Mitchell J. Lazris, Nicholas G. Stavlas, and Jessica L. Ellsworth for Real Party in Interest.

___________________

This petition arises out of a qui tam action against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. (BMS). Petitioners Michael Wilson, Lucius Allen and Eve Allen are the relators in the underlying action. The complaint seeks to impose civil penalties for violation of the Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA), Insurance Code section 1871 et seq., and alleges that BMS employed runners and cappers to induce physicians to prescribe its drugs to 1 their patients. The California Insurance Commissioner (Commissioner) intervened in the case pursuant to section 1871.7, subdivision (f), and as a result has “primary responsibility for prosecuting the action.” (Ins. Code, § 1871.7, subd. (f)(1).) On March 30, 2015, respondent court entered orders granting summary judgment in favor of real party BMS with respect to petitioner Michael Wilson, and judgment on the pleadings with respect to petitioners Lucius Allen and Eve Allen, and ordered BMS to provide proposed judgments for signature. BMS filed the proposed judgments in the superior court on April 1, 2015. On May 29, 2015, however, respondent court issued a minute order stating that because the State of California remains as a plaintiff, the matter with respect to petitioners is not resolved and, as such, judgment in favor of BMS with respect to petitioners would violate the “one final judgment” rule. Accordingly, respondent court vacated only the portion of the March 30 order that required preparation of proposed judgments. Petitioners seek a writ of mandate ordering respondent court to vacate the May 29, 2015 order, and instead to execute the proposed judgments implementing the court’s March 30, 2015 orders. This is the sole issue raised by the petition. We conclude that the multiparty exception to the one final judgment rule permits the trial court to execute the proposed judgments. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of mandate and order the trial court to vacate its May 29, 2015 order, and instead execute and file the proposed judgments.