LAW.coLAW.co

Jerry BEEMAN and Pharmacy Services, Inc., doing business as Beemans Pharmacy; Anthony Hutchinson and Rocida Inc., doing business as Finleys Rexall Drug; Charles Miller, doing business as Yucaipai Valley Pharmacy; Jim Morisoli and American Surgical Pharmacy Inc., doing business as American Surgical Pharmacy; Bill Pearson and Pearson and House, doing business as Pearson Medical Group Pharmacy; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ANTHEM PRESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT, LLC; Argus Health Systems, Inc.; Benescript Services, Inc.; FFI RX Managed Care; First Health Services Corporation; Managed Pharmacy Benefits, Inc., formerly known as Cardinal Health MPB Inc.; National Medical Health Card Systems, Inc.; Pharmacare Management Services, Inc.; Prime Therapeutics; Restat Corporation; RX Solutions, Inc.; Tmesys, Inc.; WHP Health Initiatives, Inc.; Mede America Corp., Defendants-Appellants; Jerry Beeman and Pharmacy Services, Inc., doing business as Beemans Pharmacy; Anthony Hutchinson and Rocida Inc., doing business as Finleys Rexall Drug; Charles Miller, doing business as Yucaipai Valley Pharmacy; Jim Morisoli and American Surgical Pharmacy Inc., doing business as American Surgical Pharmacy; Bill Pearson and Pearson and House, doing business as Pearson Medical Group Pharmacy; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TDI Managed Care Services, Inc., doing business as Eckerd Health Services; Medco Health Solutions, Inc.; Express Scripts, Inc.; Advance PCS, Advance PCS Health, L.P.; RX Solutions, Inc., Defendants-Appellants

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit2014-01-29No. Nos. 07-56692, 07-56693
741 F.3d 29

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

ORDER

The case is remanded to the three judge panel for consideration in light of the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC, 58 Cal.4th 329, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 800, 315 P.3d 71 (2013). The prior panel opinion, 652 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir.2011), is vacated.