Legal Opinion

Hopkinton Drug, Inc. v. CaremarkPCS, L.L.C.

District Court, D. Massachusetts

Decided January 5, 2015No. Civil Action No. 14-12794-WGYPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

■MEMORANDUM

YOUNG, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

In this emergency action, Care-markPCS, L.L.C. and CVS Caremark Corporation (collectively, “Defendants” or “CVS Caremark”), moved to compel the plaintiff, Hopkinton Drug, Inc. (“Hopkin-ton”) to submit to arbitration most of the claims asserted in its complaint, and to stay any remaining claims. Hopkinton, in reply, argued that the arbitration agreement is invalid and, even if it is valid, does not cover the actions at issue in this lawsuit.

The relationship between the parties is governed by a broad arbitration clause which compels arbitration.…

2Cases cited53 opinions

  1. At&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Migra v. Warren City School District Board of EducationSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  3. Commissioner v. SunnenSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  4. Brown v. FelsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. CardegnaSupreme Court of the United States · 2006

48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Cellinfo, LLC v. Am. Tower Corp.District Court, District of Columbia · 2018
  2. Moyett v. Lugo-SánchezUnited States District Court · 2018
  3. Benson v. Casa De Capri Enterprises LLCDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2019
  4. Caremark LLC v. USRC Pharmacy LLCDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2023
  5. Efron v. UBS Financial Services IncorporatedDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2025

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API