Rel: February 28, 2025
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2024-2025
_________________________
SC-2024-0375 _________________________
Dalton Drug Co., Inc., and Hartford Pharmacy, LLC
v.
OptumRx, Inc.
Appeal from Geneva Circuit Court (CV-22-900019 and CV-22-900020)
COOK, Justice.
The plaintiff, OptumRx, Inc. ("OptumRx"), is a national pharmacy-
benefits manager that provides pharmacy-related administrative
services for various health and prescription-drug plans and insurance SC-2024-0375
programs. In 2015, Dalton Drug Co., Inc., and Hartford Pharmacy, LLC
("the Pharmacies"), entered into a series of contracts with OptumRx for
similar services. Per the terms of those contracts, the parties agreed that
any disputes that could not be resolved between them would need to be
submitted to arbitration.
In December 2021, the Pharmacies provided written notice of
disputes they had with OptumRx for alleged fraudulent pricing and
reimbursement schemes. A few months later, the parties participated in
a telephone call to discuss those disputes but were unable to reach a
resolution. That same day, OptumRx filed in the Geneva Circuit Court
complaints for a declaratory judgment to clarify (1) its rights and
obligations under an arbitration provision in the parties' contracts and
(2) that that provision was binding and enforceable, requiring the parties
to arbitrate any future disputes between them.
Following additional filings and proceedings, and the consolidation
of the actions, OptumRx moved for a summary judgment in its favor. It
specifically asserted that, if the trial court did not enforce the arbitration
provision in the parties' contracts, future litigation between it and the
Pharmacies would be inevitable because the Pharmacies had expressed
2 SC-2024-0375
an intent not to arbitrate the disputes between them. In their opposition
to OptumRx's summary-judgment motion, the Pharmacies denied that
they had refused to arbitrate their disputes with OptumRx and argued
that OptumRx's motion was due to be denied because a justiciable
controversy did not exist between them.
Following a hearing, the trial court entered a summary judgment
in favor of OptumRx and declared that the parties must arbitrate any
future disputes between them pursuant to their contracts. The
Pharmacies now appeal.
Because a justiciable controversy did not exist between the parties,
the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the actions,
rendering the trial court's summary judgment in favor of OptumRx void.
Therefore, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the actions
to the trial court, with instructions to dismiss.
Facts and Procedural History
I. The Contracts Between the Pharmacies and OptumRx
As stated previously, in 2015 the Pharmacies entered into a series
of individual contracts -- the "Provider Agreements" and the "Provider
Manuals" -- with OptumRx to participate in OptumRx's pharmacy-
3 SC-2024-0375
provider network.
As relevant here, the Provider Manuals included an arbitration
provision. That provision required all disputes, including, but not limited
to, questions of arbitrability, formation, validity, and scope, as well as
questions regarding the interpretation of the various contracts or the
breach of thereof, to be resolved exclusively by binding arbitration
administered by the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"), in
accordance with AAA's rules and procedures.
The arbitration provision also set forth certain procedural
requirements that had to be satisfied before arbitration could be initiated
by either party.
First, that provision required that the "party asserting the Dispute
shall provide written notice to the other party identifying the nature and
scope of the Dispute." (Emphasis added.)
Second, that provision provided that "[i]f the parties are unable to
resolve the Dispute within thirty (30) days after such notice is provided,
then either party may request … a … telephone conference to resolve the
Dispute." (Emphasis added.)
Third, that provision stated that "the party wishing to pursue the
4 SC-2024-0375
Dispute must initiate the arbitration within one (1) year after the date
on which written notice of the Dispute was given or shall be deemed to
have waived its right to pursue the Dispute in any forum."
II. Communication Regarding the Pharmacies' Disputes
Per the terms of the arbitration provision, counsel for the
Pharmacies sent OptumRx a letter in December 2021 titled "Notification
of Dispute on Behalf of Independent Pharmacies," on behalf of the
Pharmacies as well as over 500 other independent pharmacies
participating in OptumRx's pharmacy-provider network. That letter
stated: "We represent the Pharmacies … and are writing to provide a
written notice of disputes these Pharmacies have with your client,
OptumRx Inc.'s … practices and procedures." (Emphasis added.) After
outlining their concerns regarding OptumRx's pricing and
reimbursement schemes, the Pharmacies concluded their letter by
stating that "[i]f [OptumRx] has any interest in resolving these disputes,
please let [the Pharmacies] know within 30 days of this letter."
(Emphasis added.)
Pursuant to the terms of the arbitration provision, on March 29,
2022, the Pharmacies and OptumRx, along with their counsel,
5 SC-2024-0375
participated in a telephone-conference call to discuss the disputes
outlined in the Pharmacies' December 2021 letter. According to
OptumRx, during that telephone call, counsel for the Pharmacies "stated
that [the Pharmacies] did not agree to arbitration and intended to litigate
the parties' disputes in court." The Pharmacies assert, however, that they
did not refuse to arbitrate but instead stated that they believed that the
arbitration provision was unconscionable and should be reviewed by a
court.
III. The Underlying Declaratory-Judgment Actions
After the telephone call concluded, OptumRx filed 18 actions in
Alabama. Among those 18 actions, OptumRx filed one action against each
of the Pharmacies in the Geneva Circuit Court.1 Those actions were later
1At least 12 of the actions filed in Alabama were dismissed for lack
of a justiciable controversy. See OptumRx, as successor by merger to Catamaran Corp. v. Star Discount Pharmacy, Inc., CV-2022-90364.00, CV-2022-900366.00 & CV-2022-900367.00 (Madison Cnty. Cir. Ct., Apr. 18, 2023); OptumRx, as successor by merger to Catamaran Corp. v. Parrish Inc., CV-2022-900087.00 (Marshall Cnty. Cir. Ct., Mar. 30, 2023); OptumRx, as successor by merger to Catamaran Corp. v. Troy Pharmacy LLC, CV-2022-900044.00 (Pike Cnty. Cir. Ct., July 14, 2023); OptumRx, as successor by merger to Catamaran Corp., et al. v. Abbeville Pharmacy LLC, CV-2022-900020.00 (Henry Cnty. Cir. Ct., Feb. 28, 2023); OptumRx, Inc. v. Parks Pharmacy, Inc., CV-2022-900132.00 (Etowah Cnty. Cir. Ct., Mar. 3, 2023); OptumRx, Inc. v. Parks Pharmacy, Inc., CV- 2022-900381.00 (Montgomery Cnty. Cir. Ct., Mar. 7, 2023); OptumRx, as 6 SC-2024-0375
consolidated for trial at the request of the parties.
In both actions, OptumRx alleged:
"A dispute has arisen between the parties. Under their agreements, the parties not only agreed to arbitrate all disputes at issue here, but delegated to an arbitrator any questions as to the arbitrability of their disputes. The parties agreed to submit to binding arbitration before the American Arbitration Association."
Accordingly, pursuant to the Alabama Declaratory Judgment Act, §§ 6-
6-220 through -232, Ala. Code 1975, OptumRx asked the trial court to
"enter an Order clarifying the rights, duties, and obligations of the
parties under the Provider Manual" and to also enter an order "declaring
that [the Pharmacies are] obligated to arbitrate the parties' disputes
successor by merger to Catamaran Corp., et al. v. PVEL, LLC, CV-2022- 9000383.00 (Montgomery Cnty. Cir. Ct., Mar. 7, 2023); OptumRx, as successor by merger to Catamaran Corp., et al. v. Montgomery Drug Co., Inc., CV-2022-900382.00 (Montgomery Cnty. Cir. Ct., Mar. 7, 2023); OptumRx, as successor by merger to Catamaran Corp., et al. v. Star Discount Pharmacy Inc., et al., CV-2022-90364.00, CV-2022-900366.00 & CV-2022-900367.00 (Madison Cnty. Cir. Ct., Apr. 18, 2023); OptumRx, as successor by merger to Catamaran Corp., et al. v. Montgomery Drug Co., Inc., CV-2022-900048.00 (Autauga Cnty. Cir. Ct., June 18, 2023); OptumRx, Inc. v. Montgomery Drug Co., Inc., CV-2022-900069.00 (Elmore Cnty. Cir. Ct., June 18, 2023); and OptumRx, Inc. v. Opp Pharmacy, Inc., CV-2022-900035 (Covington Cnty. Cir. Ct., Feb. 14, 2023). Neither party explains what occurred in the remaining four actions. 7 SC-2024-0375
related to OptumRx's reimbursements for prescription drugs pursuant to
the arbitration agreements" in the Provider Manuals.
On December 13, 2022, the Pharmacies filed a motion to dismiss.
In their motion, the Pharmacies argued, among other things, that
OptumRx's declaratory-judgment actions were not based on a ripe,
justiciable controversy between the parties. Relying on caselaw from our
Court in which we recognized that "anticipation of future litigation is
insufficient to support a declaratory judgment action," Huntsville-
Madison Cnty. Airport Auth. v. The Huntsville Times, a Div. of the
Birmingham News Co., 564 So. 2d 904, 905 (Ala. 1990) (emphasis
omitted), the Pharmacies noted that, at the time OptumRx filed its
actions, "no lawsuit [had] been filed by [them] against [OptumRx]."
Rather, the Pharmacies noted that, at that point, they had "merely sent
a letter notifying [OptumRx] about a potential dispute" and that "nothing
further [had] been done."
The Pharmacies further argued that OptumRx's request for an
order clarifying the parties' rights, duties, and obligations under the
arbitration provision in the Provider Manuals was nothing more than a
request for an advisory opinion, which, they noted, our Court has
8 SC-2024-0375
repeatedly held is not the intended purpose of a declaratory-judgment
action. Accordingly, the Pharmacies argued that OptumRx's declaratory-
judgment actions against them were due to be dismissed.
In its opposition to the Pharmacies' motion, OptumRx argued,
among other things, that a ripe, justiciable controversy did exist between
the parties because, it said, the Declaratory Judgment Act authorizes
courts to "declare rights, status, and other legal relations," § 6-6-222, Ala.
Code 1975, even "where there is no 'suit or proceeding' pending." Relying
on this Court's decision in Harper v. Brown, Stagner, Richardson, Inc.,
873 So. 2d 220, 225 (Ala. 2003), OptumRx argued that, although the
Pharmacies had not commenced any litigation, a lawsuit was nonetheless
"inevitable" based on the surrounding circumstances and, thus, that
OptumRx was not required to wait until the Pharmacies sued it to have
its rights and obligations determined.
The trial court denied the Pharmacies' motion to dismiss without
explanation.
IV. OptumRx's Motion for a Summary Judgment
Eventually, OptumRx filed a motion for a summary judgment in
which it reiterated that it had brought the underlying actions "seeking a
9 SC-2024-0375
declaratory judgment that [the Pharmacies'] dispute with [it] concerning
prescription drug reimbursements must be arbitrated in accordance with
the parties' arbitration agreements." According to OptumRx, because the
Pharmacies had not demonstrated that the arbitration provision was
unenforceable, their disputes were "due to be arbitrated pursuant to their
arbitration agreement[]." OptumRx argued that, therefore, the trial court
should enter a summary judgment in its favor and should "issue a
declaration that the parties' disputes are to be arbitrated in accordance
with the parties' agreements."
In support of its motion, OptumRx attached several affidavits,
including one from Michael Holecek, one of its attorneys. According to
Holecek, during the telephone call in March of 2022, his colleagues
informed the Pharmacies of their obligation to arbitrate their disputes,
but, he claims, the Pharmacies' "counsel stated that [the Pharmacies] did
not agree to arbitration and intended to litigate the parties' disputes in
court."
In their opposition to OptumRx's motion, the Pharmacies denied
that they had refused to arbitrate their disputes with OptumRx. They
also argued that a justiciable controversy did not exist between the
10 SC-2024-0375
Pharmacies and OptumRx because OptumRx had failed to commence
arbitration as required by the arbitration provision in the Provider
Manuals and, instead, had "filed over 320 Petitions/Complaints for
Declaratory Judgment." Accordingly, the Pharmacies argued that
OptumRx was not entitled to a summary judgment in its favor.
Following additional filings and a hearing on June 21, 2023, the
trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of OptumRx and
ordered the parties to arbitrate their disputes in accordance with the
arbitration provision in the Provider Manuals. The Pharmacies now
appeal.
Standard of Review
The Pharmacies are appealing the summary judgment entered in
favor of OptumRx. It is well settled that
"[w]e review a summary judgment de novo. Potter v. First Real Estate Co., 844 So. 2d 540, 545 (Ala. 2002) (citing American Liberty Ins. Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So. 2d 786 (Ala. 2002)).
" ' "We apply the same standard of review the trial court used in determining whether the evidence presented to the trial court created a genuine issue of material fact. Once a party moving for a summary judgment establishes that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to present substantial evidence 11 SC-2024-0375
creating a genuine issue of material fact. 'Substantial evidence' is 'evidence of such weight and quality that fair-minded persons in the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably infer the existence of the fact sought to be proved.' In reviewing a summary judgment, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant and entertain such reasonable inferences as the jury would have been free to draw." '
"844 So. 2d at 545 (quoting Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. DPF Architects, P.C., 792 So. 2d 369, 372 (Ala. 2000)) (citations omitted).
"Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P."
Hooper v. Columbus Reg'l Healthcare Sys., Inc., 956 So. 2d 1135, 1139
(Ala. 2006).
Discussion
On appeal, both sides reassert many of the same arguments that
they raised in their filings in the trial court. Among those arguments is
whether a ripe, justiciable controversy existed between OptumRx and the
Pharmacies at the time OptumRx filed its declaratory-judgment actions
and, thus, whether the trial court's summary judgment in OptumRx's
favor was proper. The Pharmacies argue that OptumRx effectively
12 SC-2024-0375
sought an advisory opinion as to anticipated future litigation, which does
not present a justiciable controversy under the Declaratory Judgment
Act. In response, OptumRx argues that the Pharmacies' refusal to
arbitrate their disputes pursuant to the terms of the arbitration provision
in the Provider Manuals created a justiciable controversy between them
and, thus, that the summary judgment in its favor is due to be affirmed.
Initially, we note that "Alabama cases often address ripeness in the
context of whether a case is justiciable, or appropriate for judicial
review." Ex parte Riley, 11 So. 3d 801, 806 (Ala. 2008). " ' " [J]usticiability
is jurisdictional." ' " Bedsole v. Goodloe, 912 So. 2d 508, 518 (Ala. 2005)
(citations omitted). In other words, "[i]f no justiciable controversy exists
when the suit is commenced, then the court lacks jurisdiction" to take
any action in that case. Durham v. Community Bank of Marshall Cnty.,
584 So. 2d 834, 835 (Ala.1991). Our Court has previously recognized that
a controversy that is merely "anticipated" is not one that is "justiciable."
See Ex parte Bridges, 925 So. 2d 189, 191-92 (Ala. 2005). If any action is
taken by a trial court under such circumstances, then that action is void.
See University of S. Alabama Med. Ctr. v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 89 So.
3d 735, 741-42 (Ala. 2011).
13 SC-2024-0375
As stated previously, OptumRx filed its complaints against each of
the Pharmacies pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act. Our Court
has previously emphasized that a declaratory-judgment action requires
only that there be " ' " a bona fide justiciable controversy." ' " Creola Land
Dev., Inc. v. Bentbrooke Hous., L.L.C., 828 So. 2d 285, 288 (Ala. 2002)
(quoting Gulf S. Conf. v. Boyd, 369 So. 2d 553, 557 (Ala. 1979)). In other
words, the controversy must be " 'definite and concrete,' " must be " 'real
and substantial,' " and the party seeking relief by asserting a claim
opposed to the interest of another party " ' " upon a state of facts which
must have accrued." ' " Baldwin Cnty. v. Bay Minette, 854 So. 2d 42, 45
(Ala. 2003) (quoting Copeland v. Jefferson Cnty., 284 Ala. 558, 561, 226
So. 2d 385, 387 (1969)).
This justiciability requirement is consistent with one of the
purposes of the Declaratory Judgment Act, which "is to render practical
help in ending a controversy that has yet to reach the stage where legal
relief is immediately available and to enable parties between whom an
actual controversy exists or those between whom litigation is inevitable
to have the issues speedily determined when a speedy determination
would prevent unnecessary injury caused by the delay of ordinary
14 SC-2024-0375
judicial proceedings." Harper, 873 So. 2d at 224 (citing Ex parte State ex
rel. Lawson, 241 Ala. 304, 307, 2 So. 2d 765, 767 (1941)). Stated another
way, declaratory-judgment actions are designed to set controversies to
rest before they lead to the repudiation of obligations, the invasion of
rights, and the commission of wrongs. Id. See also Berman v. Wreck-A-
Pair Bldg. Co., 234 Ala. 293, 298, 175 So. 269, 274 (1937).
However, our Court has made clear that "[t]he Declaratory
Judgment Act … is not a vehicle for obtaining legal advice from the
courts" and " ' " does not ' " empower courts to … give advisory opinions,
however convenient it might be to have these questions decided for the
government of future cases." ' " ' " Etowah Baptist Ass'n v. Entrekin, 45
So. 3d 1266, 1274 (Ala. 2010) (citations omitted).
Finally, although this Court has explained that "a party should not
be forced to wait until the event giving rise to the claim occurs before a
court may determine the party's rights and obligations," we have also
held that "[a] declaratory-judgment action will not lie for an anticipatory
claim." Harper, 873 So. 2d at 224 (citing Creola Land Dev., Inc., 828 So.
2d at 288) (emphasis added); Huntsville-Madison Cnty. Airport Auth.,
564 So. 2d at 905 ("[A]nticipation of future litigation is insufficient to
15 SC-2024-0375
support a declaratory judgment action." (emphasis omitted)). While the
filing of a legal action is not a prerequisite to the existence of a justiciable
controversy, "an individual's legal rights [must have been] frustrated or
affected" for a controversy to be "inevitable" and, thus, "justiciable."
Harper, 873 So. 2d at 225.
First, we note that the record reflects that, in its complaints against
each of the Pharmacies, OptumRx alleged, among other things, that
"[a] real, bona fide controversy exists, as defined by [the Declaratory Judgment Act, see] Alabama Code § 6-5-220 (1975), et seq., between the parties with regard to whether [the Pharmacies are] obligated to arbitrate the parties' disputes related to OptumRx's reimbursements for prescription drugs under the arbitration agreements in the Provider Manual …."
Accordingly, OptumRx asked the trial court to "enter an Order clarifying
the rights, duties, and obligations of the parties under the Provider
Manual" and to also enter an order "declaring that [the Pharmacies] are
obligated to arbitrate the parties' disputes related to OptumRx's
reimbursements for prescription drugs pursuant to the arbitration
agreements" in the Provider Manuals.
However, the record reflects that, before the filing of the underlying
actions, the Pharmacies had merely sent a letter notifying OptumRx
16 SC-2024-0375
about potential disputes regarding its pricing and reimbursement
schemes. That letter was sent in accordance with the terms of the
arbitration provision in the Provider Manuals, which made clear that the
"party asserting the Dispute shall provide written notice to the other
party identifying the nature and scope of the Dispute." (Emphasis added.)
That provision also provided that "[i]f the parties are unable to
resolve the Dispute within thirty (30) days after such notice is provided,
then either party may request … a … telephone conference to resolve the
Dispute." (Emphasis added.) It is undisputed that, in March 2022, the
parties participated in a telephone-conference call, with their counsel, to
discuss the disputes outlined in the Pharmacies' December 2021 letter.
According to OptumRx, during that telephone call, the Pharmacies'
counsel "stated that [the Pharmacies] did not agree to arbitration and
intended to litigate the parties' disputes in court."
OptumRx relies heavily on this assertion in support of its argument
on appeal that litigation between the parties was inevitable when it filed
its declaratory-judgment actions below and, thus, that a justiciable
controversy existed between them. However, even if we assume that the
Pharmacies did not want to arbitrate their disputes with OptumRx at
17 SC-2024-0375
that time, as our caselaw above makes clear, "an individual's legal rights
[must have been] frustrated or affected" for a controversy to be deemed
"inevitable" and, thus, "justiciable." Harper, 873 So. 2d at 225.
OptumRx contends that, because the Pharmacies have refused to
arbitrate their disputes, its rights have necessarily been "frustrated or
affected." However, there is nothing in the record before us that suggests
that, between the time the parties ended their telephone call in March
2022 and the time that OptumRx filed its declaratory-judgment actions
on that same day, OptumRx's rights had in any way been "frustrated or
affected" or that the Pharmacies' alleged intention to litigate their
disputes in court was "inevitable."
Moreover, pursuant to the terms of the parties' contracts, the
Pharmacies had up to a year -- or until December 2022 -- to decide
whether they wanted to pursue their disputes. Specifically, the record
reflects that the arbitration provision in the Provider Manuals stated
that "the party wishing to pursue the Dispute must initiate the
arbitration within one (1) year after the date on which written notice of
the Dispute was given or shall be deemed to have waived its right to
pursue the Dispute in any forum." Accordingly, OptumRx's rights had
18 SC-2024-0375
not yet been "frustrated or affected" and litigation was not "inevitable" at
the time it filed its declaratory-judgment actions below. Thus, there was
no justiciable controversy between OptumRx and the Pharmacies when
OptumRx filed its actions.2
Conclusion
Because there was no justiciable controversy between the parties,
the trial court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction over the actions.
As a result of this jurisdictional defect, the trial court's summary
judgment in favor of OptumRx is void. A void judgment will not support
an appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's summary judgment
in favor of OptumRx and remand the actions with the instructions that
the trial court vacate its judgment and dismiss the actions, without
prejudice.3
2We need not decide today whether a lawsuit seeking purely declaratory relief regarding a dispute-resolution procedure could ever be justiciable before any action on the merits has been filed.
3Given our resolution of this appeal, we pretermit discussion of the
remaining issues raised on appeal by the parties. See Johnson v. Ellis, 308 So. 3d 1, 3 n.3 (Ala. 2020) (citing Favorite Market Store v. Waldrop, 924 So. 2d 719, 723 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005), for the proposition that this Court would pretermit discussion of further issues given the dispositive nature of another issue). 19 SC-2024-0375
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Stewart, C.J., and Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Mitchell,
and McCool, JJ., concur.