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 and Ellie J. Barragry, Fox Rothschild LLP,
Counsel for Defendant. This matter is before the Court on
Defendant Prime Therapeutics, LLC's (“Prime”)
motion for attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiff Physician
Specialty Pharmacy, LLC (“PSP”) opposes the
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Michael J. Davis United States District Judge
a specialty pharmacy located in Florida that had a
substantial number of customers in Alabama. 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, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.
Order dated September 18, 2019, this Court adopted the
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and dismissed the
antitrust claims with prejudice and declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. PSP has
refiled its state law claims in Florida state court.
Motion for Attorney's Fees
moves this Court for an award of attorney's fees and
costs incurred defending against the antitrust claims that
have been dismissed with prejudice. Prime asserts it is
entitled to such an award pursuant to the Pharmacy
Participation Agreement (“PPA”) that Prime
asserts governed the relationship between the parties.
9.10.1 of the PPA provides “In any legal action between
the parties hereto arising out of this Agreement, the
prevailing party, if one exists, shall be entitled to recover
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, including
reasonable expert witness fees, in addition to any other
remedies.” (Lindblad Aff., Ex. 8 (PPA at 15).) It is
Prime's position that because it prevailed with respect
to the antitrust claims, and that the antitrust claims arose
out of the PPA, it is entitled to those fees and costs
attributable to defending those claims.
on the submissions of counsel and the record herein, the
Court finds that Prime has not demonstrated that it is
entitled to the requested attorney's fees and cost.
was executed by Prime and TriNet Pharmacy NCPDP
(“TriNet”) on November 30, 2007. TriNet is a
pharmacy services administrative organization
(“PSAO”) and executed the PPA “on behalf of
itself and its Participating Pharmacies, as defined herein. .
. . and sets forth the terms and conditions under which
[TriNet] and Participating Pharmacies will provide
Prescription Drug Services and other services in ...