Hopkinton Drug, Inc. v. CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.
Citation | 77 F.Supp.3d 237 |
Decision Date | 05 January 2015 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 14–12794–WGY. |
Parties | HOPKINTON DRUG, INC., Plaintiff, v. CAREMARKPCS, L.L.C. CVS Caremark, Corp., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Lawrence G. Green, Burns & Levinson LLP, Boston, MA, Christopher L. Ayers, Burns & Levinson LLP, Providence, RI, for Plaintiff.
Robert H. Griffith, Foley & Lardner LLP, Chicago, IL, Lawrence M. Kraus, Foley & Lardner LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendants.
In this emergency action, CaremarkPCS, L.L.C. and CVS Caremark Corporation (collectively, “Defendants” or “CVS Caremark”), moved to compel the plaintiff, Hopkinton Drug, Inc. (“Hopkinton”) to submit to arbitration most of the claims asserted in its complaint, and to stay any remaining claims. Hopkinton, in reply, argued that the arbitration agreement is invalid and, even if it is valid, does not cover the actions at issue in this lawsuit.
The relationship between the parties is governed by a broad arbitration clause which compels arbitration. This Court does, however, retain the authority to issue a preliminary injunction and may develop the factual record necessary to do so. Before doing so, however, it needed to assure itself that the conduct Hopkinton originally sought to enjoin has not yet occurred; if it has, a preliminary injunction would be moot and could not be issued.
On June 30, 2014, Hopkinton filed a five-count complaint against the Defendants, in which it sought injunctive and monetary relief. Verified Compl. & Jury Demand, ECF No. 8. On that same day, it also filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). Emergency Mot. TRO, ECF No. 3. This Court held a hearing two days later, on July 2, 2014, at which time, as is its wont, it combined the TRO motion with a trial on the merits pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), and placed the case on the running trial list for September 2014. The next day, on July 3, Hopkinton filed an amended complaint, which added an additional count seeking confirmation of a previously issued arbitration award entered in its favor and against the Defendants. Verified Am. Compl. & Jury Demand (“Compl.”), ECF No. 12.
That same day, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, along with an accompanying memorandum. Defs.' Mot. Compel Arbitration, ECF No. 13; Mem. Law Supp. Defs.' Mot. Compel Arbitration (“Defs.Mem.”), ECF No. 14. Hopkinton responded on July 10, 2014. Pl.'s Mem. Law Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Compel Arbitration (“Pl.'s Opp'n”), ECF No. 16. The Defendants replied on July 14, 2014. Reply Supp. Defs.' Mot. Compel, Arbitration () , ECF No. 23.
The Court heard the matter on an expedited basis on July 17 and 18, 2014. Elec. Notice, July 14, 2014, ECF No. 21.
Hopkinton is an independent pharmacy, which specializes in compounded pharmaceuticals (i.e., “preparing on a prescription-by-perception basis compounded medications for patients who cannot take standard prescriptions.”). Compl. ¶¶ 7–8. CVS Caremark is a national pharmacy operator. Caremark entered into a provider agreement (the “Provider Agreement”) with Hopkinton whereby Hopkinton agreed to fill prescriptions for health care plan members for which CVS served as a pharmacy benefits manager (“PBM”).2 Id. ¶ 13. On June 23, 2014, CVS Caremark issued a written notice to Hopkinton, alleging that Hopkinton was not in compliance with the Provider Agreement, and that it would terminate Hopkinton's rights under the agreement. Id. ¶¶ 16, 19.
The relationship between Hopkinton and CVS is governed, as discussed above, by the Provider Agreement, which incorporates by reference a provider manual (the “Provider Manual”). The Provider Manual sets out further details governing the contractual obligations among the parties. See Defs.' Mem., Ex. 6, Decl. Wendy Walker, Ex. C, Provider Agreement, ECF No. 14–6. The parties first entered into the Provider Agreement in 1995, and it governs the contractual relationship today. See Defs.' Mem., Ex. 6, Decl. Wendy Walker 2. The Provider Agreement includes a clause requiring all disputes to be settled by an arbitrator, Provider Agreement § 9.5, as well as a provision allowing Caremark to amend the agreement or manual “by giving notice to the Provider of the terms of the amendment and specifying the date the amendment becomes effective.” Id. § 1.3. By agreement, Arizona law applies to any substantive disputes. Id. § 9.4.
The Provider Manual also includes an arbitration clause. Complicating the dispute, there are two Manuals at issue here: one issued in 2011 (the “2011 Manual”), and one issued in 2014 (the “2014 Manual”).
As is relevant for arbitration purposes, the 2011 Agreement provides that:
Any and all disputes in connection with or arising out of the Provider Agreement by the parties will be exclusively settled by arbitration before a single arbitrator in accordance with the Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator must follow the rule of Law, and may only award remedies provided for in the Provider Agreement. The award of the arbitrator will be final and binding on the parties, and judgment upon such award may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. Any such arbitration must be conducted in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Provider agrees to such a jurisdiction, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing. The expenses of arbitration, including reasonable attorney's fees, will be paid for by the party against whom the award of the arbitrator is rendered. Except as may be required by Law, neither a party nor an arbitrator may disclose the existence, content or results of any dispute or arbitration hereunder without the prior written consent of both parties. Arbitration shall be the exclusive and final remedy for any dispute between the parties in connection with or arising out of the Provider agreement; provided, however, that nothing in this provision shall prevent either party from seeking injunctive relief for breach of this Provider Agreement in any state or federal court of law.
Pls.' Opp'n, Ex. 1, 2011 Provider Manual, ECF No. 16–1. The manual further provides that the contract is not static, but rather:
From time to time ... Caremark may amend the Provider Agreement ... by giving notice to the Provider of the terms of the amendment and specifying the date the amendment becomes effective. If Provider submits claims to Caremark after the effective date of any notice or amendment, the terms of the notice or amendment is accepted by Provider and is considered part of the Provider Agreement.
Id. Pursuant to that authority, on November 15, 2013, CVS sent Hopkinton a cover letter accompanied by a new Provider Manual which “supersedes all previous versions of the Provider Manual” as of January 1, 2014. Defs.' Mem., Ex. 6, Decl. Wendy Walker, Ex. A, Caremark Letter, ECF No. 14–6. Wendy Walker, CaremarkPCS's Director of Contracting Communications, averred that Hopkinton Drug submitted claims after January 1, 2014, the effective date of the 2014 Provider Manual. Defs.' Mem., Ex. 6, Decl. Wendy Walker 3.
In turn, the 2014 Manual provides that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cellinfo, LLC v. Am. Tower Corp.
...in providing that an arbitrator has the ability to rule on issues involving the scope of the agreement. Hopkinton Drug, Inc. v. CaremarkPCS, L.L.C., 77 F.Supp.3d 237, 248 (D. Mass. 2015) (quoting Awuah, 554 F.3d at 11 ). Moreover, where an arbitration provision's scope is unclear, arbitrati......
-
Hoyle, Tanner & Assocs., Inc. v. 150 Realty, LLC
...to seek judicial intervention under certain circumstances. See Oracle, 724 F.3d at 1071, 1075-76 ; Hopkinton Drug, Inc. v. CaremarkPCS, L.L.C., 77 F. Supp. 3d 237, 242, 248-50 (D. Mass. 2015) ; BAYPO Ltd. Partnership v. Technology JV, LP, 940 A.2d 20, 23, 26-27 (Del. Ch. 2007).These cases a......
-
Murphy v. City of Newton
.... . . subject to the same exceptions and qualifications, as a judgment of a court." Hopkinton Drug, Inc. v. CaremarkPCS, LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 237, 254 (D. Mass. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). While final arbitral awards are generally afforded the same preclusive effec......
-
Moss v. Brock Servs., LLC
...Tannatt v. Varonis Sys., Inc., No. CV 18-12589-JGD, 2019 WL 830482, at *5 (D. Mass. Feb. 21, 2019); Hopkinton Drug, Inc. v. CaremarkPCS, L.L.C., 77 F. Supp. 3d 237, 248-49 (D. Mass. 2015). As to Mr. Moss's claims from 2016 to 2017, the Court concludes the parties delegated to the arbitrator......