Platt, LLC, et al. v. OptumRx, Inc.

Background

The action was filed in Alameda County Superior Court in September 2020. The plaintiffs are 21 independent pharmacies. They allege that OptumRx, a pharmacy benefits manager, used its price-setting power to drive independent pharmacies out of business, breached the parties’ contracts, and violated its related duty of good faith and fair dealing. They also allege that OptumRx sought to divert business to an affiliated mail-order pharmacy.

Nearly five years after the action was filed, OptumRx removed it to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), the federal-officer removal statute. OptumRx argued that the challenged conduct was connected with actions it took under the Veterans Health Administration. It later filed an amended notice of removal that also identified the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The plaintiffs moved to remand both notices and moved to strike the amended notice.

Timeliness of Removal

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), a defendant generally must remove within 30 days after receiving the initial pleading if that pleading shows the case is removable. Under § 1446(b)(3), a separate 30-day period can begin when the defendant receives an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper from which removability can first be ascertained.

The court concluded that OptumRx’s removal was untimely under either analysis. First, the court reasoned that OptumRx knew from the outset that the Veterans Health Administration was one of the health-plan sponsors for which it processed prescription-drug benefits. The court found that OptumRx appeared to have developed its federal-officer removal theory through later legal analysis rather than discovering new facts in 2025. Because the relevant facts and the nature of the claims were known at the beginning of the case, the court concluded that OptumRx could not avoid the removal deadline by waiting to develop a new legal argument.

Second, even assuming the original complaint did not trigger the 30-day period, the court held that OptumRx’s discovery responses constituted an “other paper” under § 1446(b)(3). OptumRx had produced information concerning more than 4,000 claims involving the Veterans Health Administration and more than 400,000 claims involving Medicare. The court found that the production made it clear that OptumRx was processing claims at the direction of those agencies and held that the 30-day period began in December 2023. Because OptumRx did not remove until August 2025, the removal was untimely.

Federal-Officer Jurisdiction Not Decided

The court did not reach the plaintiffs’ argument that OptumRx failed to establish a substantive right to remove under § 1442(a)(1). The court noted that federal-officer removal requires a defendant to show that it acted under a federal officer, that the plaintiff’s injuries were connected to those actions, and that the defendant could assert a colorable federal defense. The court also noted that it was unclear whether OptumRx could satisfy the latter two requirements, but those issues were unnecessary to resolve because the removal was untimely.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand directed at the original notice of removal. It held that the amended notice did not change the timeliness analysis, so the motion to strike the amended notice and the plaintiffs’ motion to remand directed at that notice were moot. The court extended the order’s effective date to January 23, 2026. If OptumRx had not obtained an appellate stay by that date, the action would be remanded to Alameda Superior Court.