PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:19-cv-07577
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In PharmacyChecker.com v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy, Judge Karas denied immediate appeal of the Sherman Act ruling and denied a request to pause the case.
PharmacyChecker.com LLC and the defendants were affected by the denial of immediate Rule 54(b) judgment and the denial of a stay; the case was directed to proceed toward Phase 2 discovery.
What happened
PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy concerns a Sherman Act claim on which the Court previously granted Defendants’ summary judgment motion, finding that PharmacyChecker.com LLC lacked standing, meaning the legal ability to bring the claim. The parties jointly asked the Court to enter a final judgment on that claim so PharmacyChecker.com LLC could appeal.
The parties argued that an immediate appeal could affect a related case in the District of Oregon and avoid costly discovery while the appeal was pending. The Court found those arguments unpersuasive. It concluded that a Second Circuit decision would not bind the Oregon court and that the ordinary costs and delay of litigation did not amount to the kind of hardship required for immediate appeal.
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the parties’ joint motion for a final order and judgment under Rule 54(b), and also denied their request to stay the case pending appeal. The parties were instructed to submit a proposed plan for the next phase of discovery by June 30, 2023.
The detailed version
- PharmacyChecker.com LLC v. National Association of Boards of Pharmacy · No. 7:19-cv-07577
- Kenneth Karas
- June 5, 2023
Background
The Court had previously granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on PharmacyChecker.com LLC’s claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Court found that PharmacyChecker.com LLC lacked standing to bring that claim. The earlier ruling also dismissed Alliance for Safe Online Pharmacies, Center for Safe Internet Pharmacies, and Partnership for Safe Medicines from the action because no claims remained against them.
At a May 1, 2023 status conference, the parties jointly asked the Court to enter a final order and judgment on the Sherman Act claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). That rule can permit an immediate appeal of fewer than all claims or parties when multiple claims or parties are involved, at least one claim or party’s rights have been finally determined, and the court finds no just reason to delay entry of judgment. The parties also asked the Court to stay, or pause, the case while an appeal proceeded.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court agreed that the first two Rule 54(b) requirements were satisfied: the case involved multiple claims and parties, and the Sherman Act claim had been finally resolved. The parties still had to show that there was no just reason to delay an appeal.
The parties argued that an appeal could help shape related litigation in the District of Oregon and could avoid financial hardship from discovery on a claim that this Court had dismissed. The Court rejected both arguments. It explained that any Second Circuit ruling on the standing question would be persuasive at most, not binding, in the Ninth Circuit. The Court also found that the ordinary costs of discovery and the parties’ interest in obtaining a faster appeal did not constitute the unusual hardship or injustice required for Rule 54(b) certification.
Ruling
Judge Kenneth M. Karas denied the parties’ joint motion for a final order and judgment on the Sherman Act claim. The Court also denied the associated request to stay the case pending appeal. The parties were instructed to submit a proposed case management plan for Phase 2 discovery by June 30, 2023. The Court canceled the status conference scheduled for June 28, 2023 and stated that it would decide later whether another conference was needed.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.