Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that thi s opinion should not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40388

R X
. C O M P l a i n ti ff - A p p ell a n t v. M ED CO H EA LTH SO LU TI O N S, I N C. ; CA RE M AR KRX I N C. ; EX PR ESS S C R IP T S , IN C

. D efen da n t s - A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e E aster n D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 5: 04- C V

- 227

B ef ore G A R W O O D , O W E N , an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg e: * P la in tiff

R x .co m b r o u g h t t h is la w s u it a lle g in gth a t t h e p h a r m a c yb e n e fit
m an a g e rs, C arem ark R X , I n c. ( “ C arem ark”) , M edco H eal t h Soluti on s, I n c. (“M e d c o ”), a n dE x p r e s s S c r ip ts , In c . (“E x p r e s s S c r ip ts ”) ( c o l l e c tiv e ly

“ D efen da n t s” ) sup pres se d com peti t i on by “r ef u salt o deal” an d “den yi n g t h em a c c ess to th eir n etw ork s u n l ess u p side w a s sh a red , a n d oth erw i se ac tin gin concertw i t h one an ot h er” t o f rustr ate com peti t i on . R x. com asser t ed cl ai m s f or: United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April22, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 40388

2 (1) a gr ee m en t i n restra i n t of trad e in v i olati on o f section 1 of the S h erm a n A ct; ( 2) c ons pi r ac y t o m onopo l i ze i n vi ol at i on o f s ec t i on 2 o f

t he Sher m an A c t ; and ( 3) at t e m pt e d m o no po l i z at i o n i n vi o l at i o n o f s e c t i o n 2 o f t he She r m an A ct
. The di st r i c tc our tgr ant ed s um m ar y j udgm entt o D ef endant s. Becaus e w e f i nd t hat th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s b a r s th e s e cla im s , w e A F F IR M
. I . Bac kgr ound D efen da n t s are ph arm acy ben ef i tm an agers ( “ P B M s” ) , w h i ch are t h i rd pa rt y ad m i n i st rat ors of prescr i pti on d rug program s f or heal t h i n suran ce pl an s, em p l oy ers, un i on s, g ov ern m en tal en ti ti es, a n doth ers. F rom D ece m b er 1 9 9 8 to Ju n e 199 9, D ef

en da n t s di scussed am on g t h em selves t h e t h reat t o t h ei r busi n ess o f i n tern et p h a rm a ci es. T h ere i s som e ev i d en ce th a t D efen d a n ts col l e c tiv e ly d ecid e dto exc l u d e a l li n tern et p h a rm a ci es from acce ss to th eir ne tw ork s to p r e v e n t t h e in te r n e t p h a r m a c ie s fr o m co m p e tin gw ith D e fe n d a n ts ’d ir e c t m a il bu si n esses . R x. com app l i ed f

or adm i ssi on i n t o each of t h e D efen da n t s’netw orks. Th os e r eques t s w er e de ni ed as f ol l ow s: ( 1) by C ar em ar k, on Februar y 14, 2000; ( 2) by M edc o, f

i r ston O c t obe r26, 1999 and t hen on Febr uary 15, 2000; and ( 3) by Ex p r e s s Sc r i p t s i n Fe b r ua r y o f 2 0 0 0
. Thi s l a ws ui t was f i l e d o n Oc t o ber8, 200 4. T h u s, u n l ess som e groun d exi st s f or t ol l i n g t h e st atute of l i m ita tion or b e g i n n i n ga c c r u a lo f

t h e c a u s e s o f

a c t i o n l a t e rt h a n F e b r u a r y2 0 0 0 , t h e s e c l a i ms are t i m e- barred. 15 U
. S

. C

. § 15b ( 200 6)

. R x. com contends that l i m i t ati on s does
n o t b a rits cla im s fo rth e fo llo w in gre a s o n s : ( 1 ) th e cla im s d idn o t a c c r u e u n til
som e ti m e a ft er O ctob er 2 0 0 0 , w h en th e i nj u ry w a s d i scov era b l e; (2) D efen d a n ts
c o m m i t t e d “ c o nt i nui ng vi o l at i o ns ” t hr o ugh2 00 1; ( 3) D e fe nda nt s ’f r aud ul e nt
c o n c e a lm e n t t o lls lim ita tio n s ; a n d(4 ) th e lim ita tio n s p e r io ds h o u ldb e e q u ita b ly t ol l ed f or t h e peri od of

t i m e w h en R x. com l acked of f i cers an d d i rect ors.N o. 08- 40388

3 I I . St andard of

R evi ew T h i s court revi ew s a di st ri ctcourt ’ s grant of sum m ary j u dg m en tde n ovo, a p p ly in gth e s a m e s ta n d a r da s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. T IG I n s. Co. v. A on R e, I

n c. , 52 1 F. 3d3 51 , 3 54 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 8)

. Sum m ar y j udg m e nti s a ppr o pr i at e “ i f t he pl ead i n gs, t h e di scovery and di scl osure m ater i al s o n f il e , a n d an y af

f i da vi t s s h ow th a t t h e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to a n ym a te r ia l fa c t a n dth a tt h e m o v a n t is
en ti tl ed to j u d gm en t as a m a tter of l a w . ” F ED . R. C IV . P. 5 6 (c). I I I . D i s cus s i on A . A cc r ual T h e U n i t ed S t ates C o de p rovi des t h at “ [ a] n y act i on t o enfor ce anycause of act i on un der sect i on 15, 15a , or 15c of t h i s t i t l e sha l l be f orever barred u n l ess c om m enc ed w i t hi n f

ouryear s af

t erthe c ause of

act i on acc r ued. ” 15 U
. S. C

. § 15b.

“ G e ne r al l y, ac aus e o f a ct i on a ccr ue s a nd t he s t at ut e b e gi ns t o r un when a d efen d a n t com m i ts an act th a t i nj u res a plain ti ff ’ s bu sine ss. ” Ze ni t h Ra d i oCo r p. v. Hazel t i n e R ese arch, I n c. , 4 01 U
. S. 3 21 , 3 38 ( 19 71 )

. “ [ I ] f apl ai nt i f

f fe e l s t he ad verse i m pa ctof

an a n t i t rust conspir acy on a parti cul ar date, a cause of act i on im m e d ia te lya c c r u e s to h im to re c o v e ra ll d a m a g e s in c u r r e d b yth a t d a te
. . . ” Id
. at339. T h e d i st ri ctcou rth el d t h at R x. com ’ s anti t rust cl ai m s acc rued i n F ebru ary 200 0, by w h i ch t i m e i t s i n t ernet pha rm acy h ad been ref u sed ad m i ssi on by each D e fe n d a n t. R x .co m in s is ts , h o w e v e r , t h a t it s cla im s d idn o t a c c r u e u n til it becam e a w a re of

ci rcum st an ces w h i ch, i n t h e exerci se of reasonab l e di l i gen ce, w o u l dl ea dto t h e d i scov eryof facts tha t w ou l dall ow i t t o fi l e su i t; D efen d a n ts
a rg u e th a t t h e l i m i tati on s cl ock b eg a n to ru n w h en R x.com h a dk n ow l ed ge of i ts inju r y . The U ni t e d St at e s Supr e m e Cour ta ns w e r e d t hi s q ue st i on i n R ot e l la v. W ood , 528 U
. S

. 549 , 555 ( 200 0) , st ati n g, “ i n a p p l yi n g a dis covery acc rua lrul e, w e ha ve b e e n a t pa i ns t o e xp l ai n t hat di s c o ve r y o f t he i nj ur y, no tdi s c o ve r y o f t heN o. 08- 40388

4 ot herel em ent s of

a c l ai m , i s w hats t ar t s t he c l oc k. ” App l yi ng R o tellat o t he present case, t h e i nj u ry of w h i ch R x. com com pl ai n s i s excl u si on f rom t h e m arket by D efen da n t s, a factkn ow n t o i ti n F ebru ary 200 0 w h en i t s app l i cat i on t o enter i n t o t h e D efen da n t s’netw orks ha d been den i ed. O n F ebru ary 29, 200 0, R x. com c om pl ai ned i n w r i t i ng t o t he FT C t hat“ 2/ 3 o f t he r eques t s f

r om ourpr os pec t ive custom ers h ave t o be t u rned aw ay becau se c ert ai n P B M ’ s r ef u se t o al l ow R x. com i n t o t h ei r netw orks. ” Jo seph R osson, co- f ou n der an d C E O of

R x. com , t est i f

i ed i n an un rel ated cas e th a t he alw ays bel i eved t h at w h at t h e D efen da n t s w ere doi n g w as i l l egal. E ven t h ou gh R x. com m ay n otha ve kn ow n al lth e d e ta il s of t he D ef endant s’c onc er t ed c onduct , i tk new i tw as i nj ure d, s uspec t ed il l egal i t y, an d had suff

i ci en t kn ow l edg e t o com pl ai n t o t h e F T C

. U n der R o tella , t he n, t he
c lo c k b e g a n to ru n in F e b r u a r yo f 2 0 0 0
. B. Cont i nui ng Vi ol at i ons R x. c om as se r t s t hateven i f som e of i t s c l ai m s ac c r ued i n F ebr uary of 2000, D efen da n t s’ conti n u i n g vi ol ati on s of t h e an t i t rust l aw s t ol l ed li m i t ati on s. D efen d a n ts asse rt t h a t t h ere w a s n o con ti n u i n g viol a ti on , a n d th a t i n an y e ve n t, t h ey on l y rei t erat ed t h ei r f i n al deci si on s t o excl u de R x. com f rom t h ei r netw orks. U n der t h e conti n u i n g conspir acy t h eory, “ each t i m e a pl ai n t i f f i s i nj u red bya n a c to f

the def

e nda nt s ac aus e o f

a c t i o n a c c r ue s t o hi m t o r e c o ve rt he da m ages cau sed byt hata c ta nd .
. . t he s t at ut e o f l i m i t at i o ns r uns f

r o m t he
com m i ssion of th e a ct. ” Zen ith , 4 0 1 U .S . a t 3 3 8 ; s e ea ls o K a i s e rA l u mi n u m & C h em . S a les , I

n c. v. A von d aleS h i

pya rds, I

n c. , 6 77 F. 2d1 04 5, 1 05 1 ( 5t h Ci r. 1 9 8 2 ); Po s t e rEx c h. v. Nat ’lSc r e e n Se r v . Cor p. , 5 1 7 F .2d 1 1 7 , 1 2 5 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 5 ). Rx. c o m fai l e d t o o f

fe revi den c e o f

“ a s pe c i f

i c a c to rw o r d o f

r e f us aldur i ng t he l i m i tati on s p eriod
. ” Pos t e rExc h. , 5 17 F
. 2d a t1 29. In ot h er w ords, R x. com fai l ed to off er e v id e n c e th a t D efen d a n ts rei tera tedthe i r refu sa l s to ad m i t R x.com to t h ei r netw orks du ri n g t h e li m i t ati on s p eri od. T h u s, R x. com fai l ed to rai se a factN o. 08- 40388

5 i s s ue o n i t s “ c o nt i nui ng vi o l at i o ns ” c l ai m s uf f i c i e ntt o de fe at the l i m i t at i o ns defense. C. Fr audul e ntConc e al m e nt R x. com contends that D efen da n t s f rau du l en t l y conceal ed i t s c au ses of act i on . I n order t o avoi d sum m ary j u dg m en t , R x. com w as requ i red t o rais e a fact i ssue as t o t w o el em en t s: “ f i rst , t h at t h e d e fen d an t s c on ceal ed the cond u ct
c o m pl ai ne d o f, a nd s e c o nd, t hatt he pl ai nt i f f fai l e d, de spi t e the e xe r c i s e o f due d ilige n ce on h i s p a rt, to discov er th e facts th a t f orm the ba sis of his cla im .” T exas v. A l lan Con st r. Co. , 8 51 F. 2d 1526, 1528 ( 5t h C i r . 1988) (i nt er nal q u ota ti on an dci tati on om i tt e d ). T o sa ti sfy th e fi rst el em en t, the de fen d a n ts
m u st h a ve en ga ge di n “aff i rm a tiv e a c ts of con cea l m en t. ” I d. a t1 53 1. I n t he pr e s e ntc as e , Rx. c o m a r gue s t hatt he s e c r e tc o m m uni c at i o ns b e t w e e n t he D e fe nda nt s w hi l e t he y e ac h c l ai m e d t he y w e r e m ak i ng uni l at e r alde c i s i o ns a nd p u b l i c l ys t a t e dt h e ywe r e h o r i z o n t a lc o m p e t i t o r s c o n s t i t u t e f r a udul e nt
con cea l m en t. H o w e ve r , “ [ c ] o nc e al m e ntb y de f e nda ntonl y bysi l e nc e i s no te no ugh
. [The de fe nda nt] m us tb e g ui l t y o f s o m e t r i c k o rc on t ri va nc e t e ndi ng t o e xc l ude
su sp i ci on a n d p r ev en t i n q u i ry . ” A l lan Con st r. , 8 51 F. 2da t1 53 2 ( quo t i ng Crum m e rCo. v . D u Po nt , 2 5 5 F .2 d4 2 5 , 4 3 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 5 8 ) (a lt e r a t io n in
o r i gi nal) )

. Si m i l ar l y, “ de ni alo f w r o ngd o i ng i s no m o r e a n a c to f c o nc e al m e nt t han i s s i l e nc e ” unl e s s “ t he pa r t i e s ar e i n a f i duc i ar y r e l at i o ns hi p, o rw he r e t he
c i r c um s t anc e s i ndi c at e t hat i t w as r e as o nab l e f o r t he pl ai nt i f

f t o rel y on d efen d a n t’ s d en i a l
. ” Id
. at 153 2- 33. H ere, t h ere i s no such af f i rm ative actof conceal m en ton the pa rtof t h e D efen da n t s. D . Equi t ab l e Tol l i ng T h e i ssue of

equ i t able t ol l i n g i s s u bj ectt o di f feri n g st an da rds of

revi ew dep en di n g on t h e basi s of t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on . I f t h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed
e q u ita b l e t o l l i n ga s am a tt e ro f la w , th is co u r t’s re v ie w is d e n o v o . FD ICv.N o. 08- 40388

6 D aw son , 4 F. 3 d1 3 0 3 , 1 3 0 8 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 3 )

. A l t e r n a t iv e l y , ad e n i a lt h a ts t e ms f rom t h e di st ri ctcou rt’s w ei gh i n g of t h e equ i t i es i s r evi ew ed f or abu se of d is c r e tio n . T

eem ac v. Hend ers on , 29 8 F. 3d 45 2, 45 6 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 2) (r e vi e w i ng di st ri ctcourt ’ s r ef

u salt o t ol lT i t l e V IIli m i t ati on s p eri od on m ot i on t o di sm i ss f or a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. Patt ers on , 211 F. 3d 927, 931 ( 5t h C i r . 2000) (review i n g d i stri ct cou rt’ s refu sa lt o tollA n ti -T erro ri sm an dE ff ective D ea th P e n a ltyA ct lim ita tion s p e r io d o n m o tion to d ism iss fora b u se of d iscr e tion ); Fi sher v. Joh n son , 174 F
. 3d 710 , 7 1 3 (5 t h C i r. 199 9) ( exp l ai n i n g t h at di st ri ct court’ s di scr et i on ary ref u salt o t ol ll i m i t atio n s sh ou l d be revi ew ed f or abu se of d i scre ti on , ev en w h ere m a d e on th e p le a d i n gs ). “Adistri ct cou rt ab u ses i ts di s c r e t i o n wh e n i t b a s e s i t s d e c i s i o n o n a n e r r o n e o u s l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n o ro n a cl ea rl y e rron eo u s f

i n d i n g o f fact. ” Ja m es v. Ca in , 56 F
. 3d 662 , 665 ( 5th C i r. 1995) (c i t i ng McG a ry v. S co tt , 2 7 F .3d 1 8 1 , 1 8 3 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 4 )). In t h e case bef

ore us, t h e di st ri ctcourtexerci sed di sc re tion i n not
e qui t ab l y t o l l i ng Rx. c o m ’ s c l ai m s . The di s t r i c tc o ur ts t at e d i n i t s o r de r : “ [ T] he C ou rtfi n ds t h at P l ai n t i f f sh ou l d be cha rged w i t h the du t y t o p u rsue i t s c l ai m s. S i n ce a derivative cau se of act i on w as al w ays ava i l able t o M r. R o sson or ot h er s har eh ol ders, t he Cour tc o nc l ude s t hatt hi s do e s no tc o ns t i t ut e t he ‘ r ar e a nd
e x c e p tio n a l cir c u m s ta n c e s ’th a t w o u lde q u ita b lyto ll th e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s .” W e ha ve st ated t h at “ ‘ [t ] h e doct ri n e of equ it able t ol l i n g preserves a pl ai nt i f f ’ s c l ai m s w h en s t r i c tappl i c at i on o f t he s t at ut e o f

l i m i t at i ons w oul d be i n eq u i tab l e.’” Pa t t ers on , 211 F. 3d at930 ( quot i ng D avisv. Joh n son , 158 F. 3d 80 6, 8 10 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 8) )

. “ ‘ Equi t ab l e t o l l i ng ap pl i es pr i nc i pa l l y w he r e t he p la in tiff

is a c t i v e l y m is le db yth e d e fe n d a n t a b o u t t h e ca u s e o f a c tio n o ris p rev en tedi n som e ex trao rd i n a ryw a y from ass ertingh i s ri gh ts. ’” I d. at930- 31 ( quot i ng Colem an v. Joh n son , 1 8 4 F .3 d3 9 8 , 4 0 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 )). Al lo f t he o f f i c e r s a n d di r e c t o r s o f Rx. c o m r e s i gne d i n M ay2 00 1, a nd R x.com didn o t rega i n off i cers an ddirectors u n ti lA p ri l20 0 4
. R x.com ass ertsN o. 08- 40388

Rx .com also contends that, durin g a perio d of time, it was un der a court -appointed 1 receivership. Rx.co m sugge sts that the pendency of the receivership is anotherrea son sup p ortin g e quit ab l e tollin g . It ar gu e s th at th e c ourt or d er ap p ointin g th e r e c eiver di d not specifically authorize the bringingof this typeof litigation . However, the receiver in que stion was specificallyapp ointed “pursuant to the applic ab leprovi sion s of the
. . . Texas Civil Practicean d Reme dies Code.” The “applicab le provision” allows a receiver to pursuelitigation without courtapp roval. T EX . C IV . PRAC . & R EM . C O D E § 64.0 33 (Vernon 200 8). Al so, Rx.co m has not brou ght forth anyfacts sugge sting th at, even if courta p p r ov alt o pursue litigation were required, the receiver could not have sou ght and obtaine d such approval. 7 t h at t h e res i gn ati on of i t s of f i cers an d d i rect ors w as an excepti on alcircum st an ce w ar r ant i ng e qui t ab l e t o l l i ng, b utfai l s t o c i t e a ny aut ho r i t y o n po i nt
. Rat he r, R x .co m re li e s o n ca s e s d is c u s s in gth e a d v e r s e d o m in a tio n ru le , w h ic h to lls l i m i t at i o ns w he n t he b o ar d i s c o nt r o l l e d b y t ho s e c ul pa bl y i n vol ve d i n t he
w r o n g fu l c o n d u c t on w h ic h th e a c tio n is b a s e d
. S ee F D ICv. Hend ers on , 61 F. 3d 4 2 1 , 4 2 5 -2 6 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). In th is ca s e , b yco n tr a s t, th e r e w a s n o o b s ta c le p r e v e n t i n gas h a r e h o l d e rf r o m p r o t e c t i n gRx
. c o m ’ s r i g h t s . Ro s s o n , f o r m e rCEO and co

- f ounderof

R x. c om , orany ot her shar ehol der , c oul d have c al l ed a spe c i al
m ee t i ng t o appoi nt a new boar d of di r ec t or s af t ert he r es i gnat i ons of M ay 200 1. S eeD EL . C ODE A NN . t i t
. 8, § 223(a) ( 200 2) (provi di n g t h at w h en a co rporati on does n ot h ave any di rect ors becau se of dea t h , resi gn ati on , or an y o th e r c a u se, an y sha reh ol der m ay cal la speci alm eet i n g f or t h e pu rposes of

el ect i n g n ew d i rector s). A l tern a tive l y, R oss on o r a n oth er sh a reh olde r cou l dh a ve bro u gh t a d e r iv a tiv e s u it on R x .co m ’ s b e h a lf. S ee E lf A t ochem N
. A m . , I

n c. v. Jaf

f ari , 727 A. 2d2 86 , 2 93

- 94 (D e l
. 1 99 9)

. I n fac t , Rosson, w ho b y e ar l y 20 00 a l r e ad y 1 th o u g h t D e fe n d a n ts w e r e a c tin gu n l a w fu llyin d e n y in gR x .co m a c c e s s to th e ir
n et w orks, di d bri n g a sha rehol der’ s derivative l aw sui tcl ai m al l egi n g a thi rd p a r tyca u s e dR x .co m ’ s d e m is e . A c c o r d in g ly , w e fin dth a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id
n otabus e i t s di s c r e t i o n w he n i t r e f us e d t o e qui t ab l y t o l l t he s t at u t e of l i m i t ati on s.N o. 08- 40388

8 IV . Con cl usi on Fort he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , w e AFF I RM t he s um m ar y j udg m e nto f t he d i stri ct cou rt.