Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02842, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02842    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      December 14, 2023                                         TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         LAKELI PHARMACY GROUP, INC., DBA GOLDEN HEALTH PHARMACY, a California corporation, v. CAREMARK, L.L.C., a California limited liability company, CAREMARKPCS, HEALTH, L.L.C, a Delaware limited liability company; CENTENE PHARMACY SERVICES, INC. a Delware corporation; WELLCARE OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.  

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV02842

EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Lakeli Pharmacy Group, Inc.

SERVICE:                              Filed December 12, 2023

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff files an ex parte application seeking a temporary restraining order prohibiting Defendants from terminating Plaintiff from the network.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Lakeli Pharmacy Group, Inc. DBA Golden Health Pharmacy’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendants improperly terminated its relationship with the Pharmacy Benefit Manager network. Plaintiff filed this complaint on December 8, 2023 alleging three causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (3) unfair business practices.

TENTATIVE RULING

            Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff files an ex parte application seeking a temporary restraining order prohibiting Defendants from terminating Plaintiff from the network.

A temporary restraining order may not be granted without notice to the opposing party unless it appears from the facts shown by affidavit or verified complaint that great or irreparable injury will result to the application before the matter can be heard on notice. (Code Civ. Proc. section 527, subd. (c)(1).) “ ‘In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court considers: (1) the likelihood that the moving party will prevail on the merits and (2) the interim harm to the respective parties if an injunction is granted or denied.’ ” (City of Vallejo v. NCORP4, Inc. (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1078, 1085.)

            California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1202, subdivision (c), provides: “An applicant must make an affirmative factual showing in a declaration containing competent testimony based on personal knowledge of irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte.”

The first issue is whether Plaintiff has demonstrated a likelihood it will prevail on the merits.

The essential elements of a breach of contract are: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) the defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff. (Green Valley Landowners Assn. v. City of Vallejo (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th. 425, 433.) “Under California law, every contract includes an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.” (Prager University v. Google LLC (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 1022, 1039.) The covenant “exists merely to prevent one contracting party from unfairly frustrating the other party’s right to receive the benefits of the agreement actually made.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 349.)

 Plaintiff contends that Defendants breached a contractual obligation by improperly terminating it from the network. Plaintiff contends that Defendant terminated its relationship with the network without further review or appeal, without reference to specific policy, and without providing more detail about evidence of Plaintiff’s improper action. However, Plaintiff does not demonstrate how any of those actions, even if true, form the basis for a breach of contract claim. At this time, the court does not rule that such conduct does not form the basis for a breach of contract claim but rather that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success for purposes of a preliminary injunction. Similarly, Plaintiff does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on its UCL claim because it does not demonstrate how Defendant’s conduct and decision to terminate Plaintiff’s relationship in a particular manner violates any applicable law.

Additionally, although it is clear that Plaintiff would suffer harm, potentially even great harm, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that a preliminary injunction is warranted. Plaintiff alleges that it has been “terminated” from the network. (Complaint ¶ 45.) If Plaintiff has already been terminated, any injunction would be a mandatory injunction compelling Defendants to reinstate Plaintiff into the network. This would change the balance of harm to each party.

At the current stage, Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order lacks sufficient basis.

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff’s application for a temporary restraining order is DENIED.

Dated:   December 14, 2023                                       ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court