Bradley v. Express Scripts
Filed 7/6/06 Bradley v. Express Scripts CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
| ANTHONY BRADLEY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC., Defendant and Respondent. | B181762 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC319292) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Victoria Chaney, Judge. Affirmed.
Browne Woods & George, Allan Browne and Michael Bowse; Rosner Law & Mansfield, Hallen D. Rosner and Alan M. Mansfield for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Husch & Eppenberger, Thomas M. Dee, Christopher A. Smith; Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Gail E. Lees and Christopher Chorba for Defendant and Respondent.
We affirm the trial court's denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction. Appellants have not established the threshold requirements for the extraordinary relief they seek.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Parties and Their Agreement
Plaintiffs and appellants Anthony Bradley, Joseph D'Angleo, Jerry Beeman, Jim Morisoli, and Bill Pearson own and operate pharmacies in California. Respondent Express Scripts, Inc. (ESI), a prescription drug claims processor, acts as an intermediary between appellants' pharmacies and insurance providers. There is no dispute that ESI processes claims for programs insuring employees of the state and federal governments.
Each appellant had a contract with ESI allowing ESI to manage the prescription drug programs for the pharmacy. The following provision, or one almost identical, was included in the contract between ESI and each plaintiff: â€
