1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. MEDICINE SHOPPE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. JKRX, INC.
 

MEDICINE SHOPPE INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. JKRX, INC.

Case No. 4:12CV157 HEA.

MEDICINE SHOPPE INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner, v. JKRX, INC., et al., Respondents.

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

June 18, 2012.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Medicine Shoppe International, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by John F. Dienelt, QUARLES AND BRADY LLP, Pro Hac Vice, Scott A. McIntosh, QUARLES AND BRADY LLP, Pro Hac Vice & Stephen J. O'Brien, SNR DENTON US LLP.

JKRX, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert M. Einhorn, ZARCO AND EINHORN, P.A., Robert Zarco, ZARCO AND EINHORN, P.A., Clark W. Hedger, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC & Leonard D. Vines, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

CSRX, Inc, Defendant, represented by Robert M. Einhorn, ZARCO AND EINHORN, P.A., Robert Zarco, ZARCO AND EINHORN, P.A., Clark W. Hedger, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC & Leonard D. Vines, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

Lepri-Ruane, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert M. Einhorn, ZARCO AND EINHORN, P.A., Robert Zarco, ZARCO AND EINHORN, P.A., Clark W. Hedger, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC & Leonard D. Vines, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

Woodward-CJS Pharmacy, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert M. Einhorn, ZARCO AND EINHORN, P.A., Robert Zarco, ZARCO AND EINHORN, P.A., Clark W. Hedger, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC & Leonard D. Vines, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

Medi-Drug, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert M. Einhorn, ZARCO AND EINHORN, P.A., Robert Zarco, ZARCO AND EINHORN, P.A., Clark W. Hedger, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC & Leonard D. Vines, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

Pacific Pharmacy Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert M. Einhorn, ZARCO AND EINHORN, P.A., Robert Zarco, ZARCO AND EINHORN, P.A., Clark W. Hedger, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC & Leonard D. Vines, GREENSFELDER AND HEMKER, PC.

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss Petition or Compel Arbitration, [Doc. No. 13]. Petitioner opposes the motion, and the matter is fully briefed. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.

Respondents initially move to dismiss the Amended Petition pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases