United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Adrienne Dresevic and Robert Dindoffer, The Health Law
Partners and Elizabeth R. Odette, Lockridge Grindal Nauen
PLLP, Counsel for Plaintiff.
Christine Lindblad, Archana Nath and Erin J. Barragry, Fox
Rothschild LLP, Counsel for Defendant.
MICHAEL J. DAVIS JUDGE
above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Tony Leung
dated August 8, 2019. Plaintiff has filed objections to the
Report and Recommendation.
to statute, the Court has conducted a de novo review
of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule
72.2(b). Based upon that review, the Court will overrule
Plaintiff’s objections and will adopt the Report and
Recommendation in its entirety.
Physician Specialty Pharmacy, LLC (“PSP”) is a
specialty pharmacy located in Florida that had a substantial
number of customers in Alabama. Defendant Prime Therapeutics, LLC
(“Prime”) is a pharmacy benefits manager
(“PBM”) that manages the prescription drug
benefits for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama. For
several years, PSP filled prescription claims for
Prime’s beneficiaries, but in December 2015, Prime
began to conduct a series of audits concerning PSP’s
claims to Prime for payment. While the audits were conducted,
Prime refused to pay PSP for any prescriptions it dispensed
to a Prime member.
16, 2016, Prime terminated PSP from its pharmacy network.
April 2017, Prime announced the creation of AllianceRx; a
joint venture with Walgreens to provide specialty and
mail-order pharmacy services.
April 2018, PSP brought this action against Prime. Counts I
through XV assert claims under Minnesota and Florida law.
Count XVI asserts a number of antitrust violations under
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman act and Sections 3 and 7 of
the Clayton Act.
Order dated March 28, 2019, the Court adopted the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leung and granted
Prime’s motion to dismiss the antitrust claim for
failure to state a claim, and deferred ruling on the issue of
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law
claims. Thereafter, PSP was given leave to file the Second
Amended Complaint (“SAC”), and Prime again moves
to dismiss the antitrust claim and requests the Court decline
to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
Report and Recommendation
briefing and oral argument, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation again recommending the Court grant
the motion to dismiss the antitrust claim and to decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state
law claims. The Magistrate Judge further recommended ...