Beeman v. Anthem Prescription

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAR 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
JERRY BEEMAN AND PHARMACY No. 07-56692
SERVICES, INC., doing business as
Beemans Pharmacy; et al., D.C. No. CV-04-00407-VAP
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
ANTHEM PRESCRIPTION
MANAGEMENT, LLC; et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
JERRY BEEMAN AND PHARMACY No. 07-56693
SERVICES, INC., doing business as
Beemans Pharmacy; et al., D.C. No. CV-02-01327-VAP
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
v.
TDI MANAGED CARE SERVICES,
INC., doing business as ECKERD
HEALTH SERVICES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellants.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 30, 2014**
Pasadena, California
Before: REINHARDT, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Appellees’ motion to lift the stay of district court proceedings pending
disposition of these consolidated interlocutory appeals is GRANTED. Under 28
U.S.C. § 1292(b), the district court certified for interlocutory appeal its denials of
Appellants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings. Because the California
Supreme Court’s opinion in Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC,
315 P.3d 71 (Cal. 2013), resolved the Erie issue that animated the district court’s
§ 1292(b) orders, these appeals are now remanded to the district court for such
further proceedings as remain following the district court’s denial of Appellants’
motions for judgment on the pleadings. The remaining motions are moot. Each
party shall bear its own costs on appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).