SAN DIEGO (Legal Newsline) – A California court denied defendant GameStop Inc.’s petition for a change of trial venue on Aug. 22 in a case brought against it by two California district attorneys over allegations that the video game store violated the Secondhand Dealers Law (SDL).
GameStop filed for extraordinary writ relief on May 10 to remove the action from the County of Riverside under section 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which compels “removal and transfer to a neutral county because the district attorney, a county official, is the plaintiff,” the ruling states.
According to the ruling, the defendant maintained that the district attorneys of Riverside and Shasta counties had an “exclusive financial interest in the outcome of the suit.”
The 4th Appellate District, Division Two court disagreed.
"When the district attorney files an enforcement action in the name of the People of the State of California, respecting a statewide law regulating secondhand dealers, he or she acts in his or her capacity as a state officer. ... But the People of the State of California is the party to the action, in whose name the district attorney prosecutes a person charged with an offense. Thus, the district attorney is not the plaintiff, nor a party to the action, but is simply the legal representative of the People,” the court stated.
GameStop, which has more than 500 stores in California, was charged with violations under the Secondhand Dealers Law (SDL) in April 2017 by the People of the state of California. The SDL was legislated to help prevent theft and “fencing” of stolen property, as well as “to recover stolen property for the victims of theft,” the ruling states.
The SDL requires second-hand dealers such as GameStop to report sellers’ required information to the state when trading in electronics and other devices, as well as to provide a fingerprint. The second-hand dealer must also hold the tangible property for 30 days.
According to the ruling, in an investigation of the game store chain, it was found that in Riverside County, only two out of the 16 stores were in compliance with the SDL. In Contra Costa County, eight out of 12 stores were noncompliant. In Tulare County, 50 percent of the stores were noncompliant.
Court of Appeals of the State of California, Fourth Appellate District Division Two case number RIC1706142