UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE: 

MEDCO/EXPRESS SCRIPTS MERGER 

LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 11-4211 (DMC) (MF)

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

MOTION DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2011

EXPRESS SCRIPTS' REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS 

MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B) AND 

STAY PENDING APPEAL

Robert J. Del Tufo

Andrew Muscato

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

 MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

(A Delaware Limited Liability Partnership)

4 Times Square

New York, NY 10036-6522

Tel.: (212) 735-3000

Fax. (212) 735-2000

Robert.DelTufo@skadden.com

Andrew.Muscato@skadden.com

Joseph P. La Sala 

MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY &

 CARPENTER, LLP

1300 Mount Kemble Avenue

P.O. Box 2075

Morristown, NJ 07962-2075 

Tel.: (973) 993-8100

Fax: (973) 425-0161

Jlasala@mdmc-law.com

Attorneys for Defendants Express Scripts, 

Inc., Aristotle Holding, Inc., Aristotle Merger 

Sub, Inc. and Plato Merger Sub, Inc.

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 2760
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................................ii

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 1

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3

I. CERTIFICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IS APPROPRIATE 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).............................................................................................. 3

A. The Order Involves Controlling Questions Of Law................................................ 3

B. There Is Substantial Ground For Differences Of Opinion. ..................................... 3

1. Substantial ground for differences of opinion exists as to whether 

the Court has subject matter jurisdiction..................................................... 3

2. Substantial ground for differences of opinion exists as to whether a 

stay of the Federal Action is appropriate. ................................................... 6

C. An Immediate Appeal Will Materially Advance The Ultimate Termination 

Of This Litigation.................................................................................................... 8

II. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING APPEAL. ................ 10

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 12

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 2 of 18 PageID: 2761
ii

TABLE OF CASES AND AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE

Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 75 F.R.D. 441 (N.D. Ill. 1977)................................................................................... 11

In re Barsan Contractors, C.A. No. 10-3081, 2011 WL 3907116 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2010) .................................. 9

Beazer East, Inc. v. The Mead Corp., No. Civ. A. 91-408, 2006 WL 2927627 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2006), aff'd, 525 F.3d 255 (3d Cir. 2008) ........................................................................... 4, 5

BIL Mgmt. Corp. v. N.J. Econ. Dev. Auth., C.A. No. 06-0588 (NHL), 2006 WL 3591256 (D.N.J. Dec. 8, 2006), aff'd, 310 F. App'x 490 (3d Cir. 2008)......................................................................... 8

Carducci v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, No. Civ. A. 01-4675, 2002 WL 31262100 (D.N.J. July 24, 2002).......................... 3, 8

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Iridium Afr. Corp., 324 F. Supp. 2d 540 (D. Del. 2004)............................................................................. 4

In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., 607 F. Supp. 2d 701 (M.D. Pa. 2009).......................................................................... 5

Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Tarbuck, 62 F.3d 538 (3d Cir. 1995) .......................................................................................... 5

In re Compellent Techs., Inc. S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 6084-VCL (Del. Ch. Jan. 13, 2011) (Transcript)....................................... 11

In re Del Monte Foods Co. S'holders Litig., 25 A.3d 813 (Del. Ch. 2011) ....................................................................................... 2

In re Dwek, C.A. No. 10-4259 (MLC), 2011 WL 487582 (D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2011),

aff'd, 2011 WL 1322292 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2011) .................................................. 9, 10

Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982)..................................................................................................... 1

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 3 of 18 PageID: 2762
iii

Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 657 F. Supp. 2d 504 (D.N.J. 2009), rev'd, 621 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2010) ........................................................................................ 5

Hall v. Wyeth, Inc., No. 10-738, 2010 WL 4925258 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2010) ............................................ 4

Harrison v. XTO Energy, Inc., 705 F. Supp. 2d 572 (N.D. Tex. 2010) ................................................................ 5, 6, 8

Hulmes v. Honda Motor Co., 936 F. Supp. 195 (D.N.J. 1996)................................................................................... 8

Jackson Hewitt, Inc. v. DJSG Utah Tax Serv., LLC, C.A. No. 2:10-cv-05108 (DMC)(JAD), 2011 WL 601585

(D.N.J. Feb. 17, 2011) ................................................................................................. 9

J.I.K. Realty Co. v. Seward, No. 87 C 2839, 1989 WL 165114 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 1989)....................................... 7

Joyce v. United States, 474 F.2d 215 (3d Cir. 1973) ........................................................................................ 9

Knipe v. SmithKline Beecham, 583 F. Supp. 2d 553 (E.D. Pa. 2008)........................................................................... 9

Lan v. Ludrof, C.A. No. 1:06cv114-SJM, 2008 WL 763763 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2008).................... 6

Levine v. United Healthcare Corp., 285 F. Supp. 2d 552 (D.N.J. 2003), aff'd, 285 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 2005)............ 4, 5, 10

Lewis v. Seneff, 654 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (M.D. Fla. 2009)....................................................................... 6

In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 208 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C. 2002) ................................................................................ 10, 11

Lowenschuss v. Resorts Int'l, Inc., C.A. No. 89-1071, 1989 WL 73254 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 1989).................................... 8

McMurray v. De Vink, 27 F. App'x 88 (3d Cir. 2002)...................................................................................... 7

Michelson v. Citicorp Nat'l Servs., Inc., 138 F.3d 508 (3d Cir. 1998) ........................................................................................ 6

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 4 of 18 PageID: 2763
iv

N.J. Prot. & Advocacy, Inc. v. N.J. Dep't of Educ., No. 07-2978 (MLC), 2008 WL 4692345 (D.N.J. Oct. 8, 2008).................. 4, 5, 10, 11

N.J. Dep't of Treas., Div. of Inv. v. Fuld, Civ. No. 09-1629 (AET), 2009 WL 2905432 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2009).......................... 4

In re Novergence, Inc., C.A. No. 08-1882, 2008 WL 5136842 (D.N.J. Dec. 5, 2008)..................................... 9

Paramount Commc'ns Inc. v. QVC Network Inc., 637 A.2d 34 (Del. 1994).............................................................................................. 2

Patrick v. Dell Fin. Servs., 366 B.R. 378 (M.D. Pa. 2007)..................................................................................... 4

Rhoades v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Greater Pittsburgh, No. 09-1458, 2011 WL 240149 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2011) .......................................... 4

Romine v. Compuserve Corp., 160 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................... 6, 7

Singh v. Diamler-Benz, AG, 800 F. Supp. 260 (E.D. Pa. 1992), aff'd, 9 F.3d 303 (3d Cir. 1993).................... 3, 8, 9

Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332 (1969)............................................................................................. 6, 7, 8

Strong v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 476 F. Supp. 224 (E.D. Wis. 1979) ............................................................................. 9

Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund v. IBP, Inc., 123 F. Supp. 2d 514 (D.S.D. 2000) ............................................................................. 7

United States v. Troup, 821 F.2d 194 (3d Cir. 1987) ........................................................................................ 9

Voda v. Cordis Corp., No. CIV-03-1512-L, 2005 WL 1429887 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 7, 2005) .......................... 9

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 5 of 18 PageID: 2764
v

STATUTES 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(9)....................................................................................................... 2

S. Rep. No. 109-14 (2005), reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3 ..................................... 7, 8

Fed. App. R. 8(a)(1)......................................................................................................... 10

OTHER AUTHORITIES

William H. Rehnquist, The Prominence of the Delaware Court of Chancery 

in the State-Federal Joint Venture of Providing Justice, 48 BUS. LAW. 351 (1992) .......................................................................................... 11

Dolores K. Solviter, A Federal Judge Views Diversity Jurisdiction Through 

The Lens of Federalism, 78 VA. L. REV. 1671 (1980)............................................. 1, 2

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 6 of 18 PageID: 2765
Express Scripts requests that the Court certify for interlocutory appeal the Court's order, dated September 19, 2011 (the "Order") denying Defendants' motions to dismiss the Amended

Complaint and to stay this litigation in favor of virtually identical litigation pending in Delaware, where a class of Medco shareholders has already been certified.1

INTRODUCTION

The Order should be certified for interlocutory appeal. Plaintiffs have not cited a single

instance where a motion to certify an unclear question of subject matter jurisdiction has been

denied. Most importantly, the Court's jurisdiction should be certain before it even considers

scheduling a hearing on an injunction aimed at depriving stockholders of $29 billion in merger

consideration, which stockholders otherwise have every right to accept or reject as they see fit. The order involves controlling and compelling questions of law.

Within days of the $29 billion Proposed Transaction's announcement, twenty-one 

separate groups of plaintiffs' lawyers sued on behalf of the same putative class of Medco

shareholders. The majority has coalesced in Delaware, the appropriate forum for the purely state 

law claims at issue and where a class of Medco shareholders has already been certified. Contrary to what Plaintiffs tell the Court, the United States Supreme Court – not just Express 

Scripts – has emphasized that litigation of this nature should be regulated by the state of

incorporation, here Delaware.2

 1 Capitalized terms herein shall have the same meaning as defined in the Opening Brief in Support of

Express Scripts' Motion For Certification Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Stay Pending Appeal, 

filed on September 23, 2011 (the "Opening Brief"). (D.I. 56.)

2

See Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 645 (1982) ("only one State should have the authority to

regulate a corporation's internal affairs–matters peculiar to the relationships among or between the

corporation and its current officers, directors, and shareholders–because otherwise a corporation

could be faced with conflicting demands"). See also Dolores K. Solviter, A Federal Judge Views

Diversity Jurisdiction Through The Lens of Federalism, 78 VA. L. REV. 1671 (1980) (adjudicating

(cont'd)

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 7 of 18 PageID: 2766
2

Plaintiffs here have also told the Court that "the Delaware Court of Chancery, as part of

its own procedural practices, historically has declined to order expedited proceedings in

challenges to a proposed merger until a preliminary proxy is filed and a shareholder vote is set."3 Express Scripts responded with examples where these same plaintiffs' lawyers were granted

expedition absent a shareholder vote. (See, e.g., D.I. 14 at 17, D.I. 44 at 7-8.) Similarly, more 

than a decade ago in the seminal case of Paramount Communications Inc. v. QVC Network Inc., the Delaware Supreme Court preliminarily enjoined a no-shop provision and a termination fee. 637 A.2d 34, 42 (Del. 1994). Earlier this year, the Delaware Court of Chancery did the same

thing. See In re Del Monte Foods Co. S'holders Litig., 25 A.3d 813 (Del. Ch. 2011). Yet 

Plaintiffs continue to argue such relief cannot issue from the Delaware courts. (See D.I. 30 at 1

("this Court is the only forum where Medco's shareholders can have their challenge to the

Termination Fee and other deal protections adjudicated on an expedited basis" to provide a

meaningful remedy") (emphasis in original).)

Plaintiffs' subject matter jurisdiction arguments are infirm. They first said that this Court

could exercise subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1332(d), despite the statute's 

express command to the contrary. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(9)(B)-(C). Express Scripts brought

Plaintiffs' calculated mistake to light, and they immediately changed direction, hastily putting 

together the generic amount in controversy allegation on which they now rely. Absence of subject matter jurisdiction here is plainly subject to question, and the basis for 

jurisdiction asserted by Plaintiffs is a matter of first impression in this Circuit and raises ________________________

(cont'd from previous page)

state law issues in federal court "results in the inevitable erosion of the state courts' sovereign right

and duty to develop state law as they deem appropriate").

3

(D.I. 30 at 1. See also id. at 11; D.I. 38 at 1; D.I. 45 at 2.)

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 8 of 18 PageID: 2767
3

substantial ground for differences of opinion. This Court is entitled to meaningful assurance

from the Third Circuit that it actually has subject matter jurisdiction, before being required to 

rule on a preliminary injunction motion that could deprive stockholders of their own choice in

whether to accept or reject a $29 billion offer. Accordingly, the motion for certification of an

interlocutory appeal should be granted.

ARGUMENT

I. CERTIFICATION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IS APPROPRIATE 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(B).

A. The Order Involves Controlling Questions Of Law.

As explained in the Opening Brief, subject matter jurisdiction is a quintessential 

controlling question. (Pl. Br. at 7-8.) Plaintiffs mount no challenge to the satisfaction of this

requirement, conceding that the Order involves a controlling question of law.4 Nor do Plaintiffs

contest that judicial action in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction constitutes reversible

error. 

B. There Is Substantial Ground For Differences Of Opinion.

1. Substantial ground for differences of opinion exists as to whether the

Court has subject matter jurisdiction. As the Court's Opinion recognized, the issue of how to calculate the amount in

controversy for purposes of Section 1332(a) in a shareholder action to enjoin a merger

 4 Plaintiffs' own authority concedes the point. Carducci v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, No. Civ. A 01-4675, 

2002 WL 31262100, at *2 (D.N.J. July 24, 2002) (cited by Plaintiffs, finding subject matter

jurisdiction controlling question of law, stating "[i]f this Court erroneously decided that issue, then it

would result in reversal on final appeal, because this court would have been without jurisdiction over

the action"); Singh v. Daimler-Benz, AG, 800 F. Supp. 260, 263 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (cited by Plaintiffs, finding subject matter jurisdiction "clearly involves a controlling question of law, as a reversal of the

order denying remand would result in a voiding of the judgment at a final hearing on appeal. This

court recognizes that if this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, continuation of this

litigation in this court would be a waste of scarce judicial resources as well as the parties' time and

money."), aff'd, 9 F.3d 303 (3d Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 9 of 18 PageID: 2768
4

transaction is novel. (Op. at 5-6.) As explained in the Opening Brief, the absence of controlling

authority demonstrates a substantial ground for differences of opinion that should be certified. (Pl. Br. at 10-11.) See, e.g., Rhoades v. Young Women's Christian Ass'n of Greater Pittsburgh, C.A. No. 09-1548, 2011 WL 240149, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Jan. 24, 2011) (certifying interlocutory 

appeal, explaining: "the allegations herein ... are somewhat unusual and have not been expressly

addressed by the Third Circuit"); Hall v. Wyeth, Inc., C.A. No. 10-738, 2010 WL 4925258, at *2

(E.D. Pa. Dec. 2, 2010) (certifying interlocutory appeal, explaining "the absence of controlling

law on a particular issue can constitute substantial grounds") (citation omitted); Chase 

Manhattan Bank v. Iridium Afr. Corp., 324 F. Supp. 2d 540, 545 (D. Del. 2004) (certifying 

interlocutory appeal, holding "questions of first impression" demonstrate substantial grounds).

Plaintiffs' Opposition offers nothing to the contrary, and fails to cite a single instance

where a motion to certify an unclear question of subject matter jurisdiction was denied. In

contrast, the Opening Brief cited numerous examples of certified subject matter jurisdiction

questions by district courts within the Third Circuit. See, e.g., Levine v. United Healthcare Corp., 285 F. Supp. 2d 552, 565 (D.N.J. 2003) (certifying interlocutory appeal, explaining reversal

would mean that "this Court lacks federal jurisdiction over the action"), aff'd, 285 F.3d 156 (3d

Cir. 2005); N.J. Dep't of Treas., Div. of Inv. v. Fuld, Civ. No. 09-1629 (AET), 2009 WL 2905432, 

at *2 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2009) (certifying interlocutory appeal, explaining "jurisdiction issues are

classic examples" of certifiable questions); N.J. Prot. & Advocacy, Inc. v. N.J. Dep't of Educ., No. 

07-2978 (MLC), 2008 WL 4692345, at *5 (D.N.J. Oct. 8, 2008) (certifying interlocutory appeal

of subject matter jurisdiction question); Patrick v. Dell Fin. Servs., 366 B.R. 378, 386 (M.D. Pa. 2007) (certifying interlocutory appeal of subject matter jurisdiction question); Beazer E., Inc. v. The Mead Corp., No. Civ. A. 91-408, 2006 WL 2927627, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 12, 2006)

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 10 of 18 PageID: 2769
5

(certifying interlocutory appeal, stating "[t]he court believes that the fundamental issue of subject 

matter jurisdiction is one of the clearest examples" of certifiable question), aff'd, 525 F.3d 255

(3d Cir. 2008). As also explained in the Opening Brief, the Opinion's direct conflict with the only

authority on point, Harrison v. XTO Energy, Inc., 705 F. Supp. 2d 572, 578-79 (N.D. Tex. 2010), warrants certification. See Florence v. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 657 F. Supp. 2d 504, 509

(D.N.J. 2009) (certifying interlocutory appeal, explaining court may "look to jurisdictions

outside the one in which the Court sits when examining whether substantial grounds for

disagreement on a given issue exist"), rev'd on other grounds, 621 F.3d 296 (3d Cir. 2010); 

Levine, 285 F. Supp. 2d at 566 (certifying interlocutory appeal, finding substantial grounds after 

examining decisions outside the district); see also In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litig., 607 F. Supp. 2d 701, 705-06 (M.D. Pa. 2009) (certifying interlocutory appeal, explaining "[t]he 

existence of conflicting judicial opinions provides support for certification of an appeal, as does

a lack of binding precedent"); N.J. Prot. & Advocacy, Inc., 2008 WL 4692345, at *4 (certifying

interlocutory appeal, finding conflicting conclusions by same district court satisfactory evidence

of substantial grounds). Again, Plaintiffs cite no authority to the contrary.

Plaintiffs' attempt to bring Carr v. N.J. Cure Insurance Co. in line with the Opinion is

ineffective. (Pl. Br. at 7.) Carr squarely placed the burden on the plaintiff to demonstrate

subject matter jurisdiction. The Opinion did the opposite, holding that "Defendants have failed

to prove with legal certainty that Plaintiffs' claim involves less than $75,000." (Op. at 7.) That

holding directly conflicts with settled United States Supreme Court authority. As the Third

Circuit has explained, "where a defendant or the court challenges the plaintiff's allegations

regarding the amount in question, the plaintiff who seeks the assistance of the federal courts must 

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 11 of 18 PageID: 2770
6

produce sufficient evidence to justify its claims." Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Tarbuck, 62 F.3d 538, 541 (3d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added).

Finally, Plaintiffs' Local Civil Rule 8.1 argument concerning liquidated damages remains

nonsensical, given Plaintiffs' allegations that they have no adequate remedy at law, and therefore

seek injunctive relief. (Am. Compl. ¶ 94.) The Rule expressly states that "[n]othing stated

herein shall relieve the party filing the pleading of the necessity of alleging the requisite

jurisdictional amount in controversy," yet Plaintiffs attempt to use the Rule to avoid exactly that. The Rule certainly posed no problems in Carr. In sum, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate an absence of substantial ground for differences of

opinion as to whether subject matter jurisdiction is proper.5Instead, Plaintiffs' Opposition

merely confirms that substantial ground for differences of opinion exists here, and an

interlocutory appeal should be certified.

2. Substantial ground for differences of opinion exists as to whether a

stay of the Federal Action is appropriate. Contrary to Plaintiffs' assertions, class certification of an identical state court action is

relevant to an abstention analysis, and it demonstrates the satisfaction of the Colorado River "parallel action" requirement. Michelson v. Citicorp Nat'l Servs., Inc., 138 F.3d 508, 512 (3d Cir. 

1998) (dismissing appeal challenging District of New Jersey court's exercise of Colorado River

abstention in deference to pending class action); Romine v. Compuserve Corp., 160 F.3d 337, 341 (6th Cir. 1998) (affirming exercise of Colorado River abstention where class certified in

 5 Plaintiffs argue that Harrison is not the only case on point, yet they fail to cite contrary authority. (Pl. 

Br. at 10.) Lan v. Ludrof is a settlement approval opinion, and no findings as to amount in

controversy are made. No. 1:06cv114-SJM, 2008 WL 763763, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 21, 2008). Lewis v. Senef likewise fails to make any findings at all concerning amount in controversy. 654 F. Supp. 2d 1349 (M.D. Fla. 2009). Incredibly, Plaintiffs continue to assert that "[w]ith a billion dollar

termination fee at issue here, the jurisdictional threshold is met" without even addressing Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332 (1969). (Pl. Br. at 1, 11 n.5.) 

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 12 of 18 PageID: 2771
7

state court proceeding, holding "the specter of judicial duplication of effort looms particularly

ominously in the class action context"); Teamsters Local Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Trust Fund, 123 F. Supp. 2d 514, 517 (D.S.D. 2000) (exercising Colorado River abstention in deference to

identical case pending in Delaware because "[p]laintiff is a member of the classes proposed in

the Delaware proceedings"); J.I.K. Realty Co. v. Steward, No. 87 C 2839, 1989 WL 165114, at

*8 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 1989) (exercising Colorado River abstention, holding "[c]omplex class

litigation is particularly suited to the application of a non-duplication principle" and "duplication 

of such class litigation ... is simply more likely to present an exceptional circumstance

warranting Colorado River abstention").6 This is particularly true where, as here, Plaintiffs' claims are indisputably governed by Delaware law, and the parallel action is pending in

Delaware. 

Plaintiffs' Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA") arguments fare no better. (Pl. Br. at 14- 16.) While CAFA's amendment of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 was intended to expand substantially

federal court jurisdiction over class actions, it expressly excepted "those class actions that solely

involve claims that relate to matters of corporate governance arising out of state law." S. Rep. No. 109-14, at 42-43 (citing Edgar, 457 U.S. at 645). As Plaintiffs now admit, this action falls

squarely within the carve out.7 And, as Senate Report 109-14 demonstrates, the carve out was

intended to leave actions such as this one in the state courts: 

 6

In McMurray v. De Vink, no class had been certified in the Delaware court. 27 F. App'x 88 (3d Cir. 2002). Here, Plaintiffs are already members of a certified class of similarly situated stockholders

before the Delaware Court of Chancery.

7 Plaintiffs finally admit their original pleading, asserting jurisdiction under Section 1332(d), was

defective. (Pl. Br. at 16 (explaining 1332(d)(9) "excepts from new subsection 1332(d)(2)'s grant of

original jurisdiction those class actions that solely involve claims that relate to matters of corporate

governance arising out of state law").) Plaintiffs' counsel has both explained CAFA's amendment to

section 1332(d), even citing its legislative history, and signed a complaint squarely prohibited by its

plain language.

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 13 of 18 PageID: 2772
8

True to the concept of federalism, [CAFA] appropriately leaves certain

"intrastate" class actions in state court: cases involving .... corporate governance

cases. As such, [CAFA] promotes the concept of federalism and protects the

ability of states to determine their own laws and policies for their citizens.

Tellingly, Plaintiffs fail to even respond to the argument that traditional application of

diversity jurisdiction is informed by the notion that state law questions should be decided by the

state courts. See, e.g., Snyder v. Harris, 394 U.S. 332, 333, 339-41 (1969) (explaining 

congressional purpose "to check, to some degree, the rising caseload of the federal courts, especially with regard to the federal courts' diversity of citizenship jurisdiction"); Harrison, 705

F. Supp. 2d at 579. Finally, Plaintiffs avoid Third Circuit examples of courts deferring to state court

proceedings in which a class has been certified. See BIL Mgmt. Corp. v. N.J. Econ. Dev. Auth., C.A. No. 06-0588 (NLH), 2006 WL 3591256 (D.N.J. Dec. 8, 2006) (exercising Colorado River

abstention, dismissing action in deference to pending state court action), af 'd, 310 F. App'x 490

(3d Cir. 2008); Lowenschuss v. Resorts Int'l, Inc., C.A. No. 89-10711989 WL 73254, at *8 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 1989) (dismissing under Colorado River an action in deference to certified class in

Delaware).

C. An Immediate Appeal Will Materially Advance The Ultimate Termination

Of This Litigation.

Here, Plaintiffs again miss the point. While Plaintiffs state that "Courts, in fact, routinely 

deny certifications for interlocutory appeals if those appeals will unduly delay litigation," they

fail to cite a single instance where possible delay alone warranted denial of an interlocutory

appeal. Carducci, 2002 WL 31262100, at *3 (cited by Plaintiffs; finding no substantial grounds); 

Hulmes v. Honda Motor Co., 936 F. Supp. 195, 211-12 (D.N.J. 1996) (cited by Plaintiffs; finding 

no substantial grounds, and explaining certification of evidentiary decision on eve of trial would 

result in further delay); Singh v. Diamler-Benz, AG, 800 F. Supp. 260, 263 (E.D. Pa. 1992) (cited 

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 14 of 18 PageID: 2773
9

by Plaintiffs; finding no substantial grounds, yet conceding "that an interlocutory appeal may

materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation"), aff'd, 9 F.3d 303 (3d Cir. 1993).8

As explained in the Opening Brief, and supported by on-point authority, a Section 1292(b)

certification here would materially advance the litigation's ultimate termination, possibly

eliminating the need for burdensome duplicative discovery, costly litigation expenses and trial. Knipe v. SmithKline Beecham, 583 F. Supp. 2d 553, 601 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (certifying interlocutory 

appeal, explaining "the Court finds that an interlocutory appeal may very well spare time and

expense for both Court and litigants" where reversal would terminate litigation); see also Voda v. 

Cordis Corp., No. CIV-03-1512-L, 2005 WL 1429887, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 7, 2005)

(certifying interlocutory appeal, explaining "[t]he Court is loathe to put the parties to the expense 

of litigating the [issue] if indeed it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over those claims");

Strong v. Bucyrus-Erie Co., 476 F. Supp. 224, 225 (E.D. Wis. 1979) (certifying interlocutory

appeal, explaining if reversed, "no further proceedings will be necessary").

Accordingly, an immediate appeal would materially advance the ultimate termination of

this case, and certification of the Order is warranted.

 8 Much of Plaintiffs' cited authority addresses appeals to the district court from a bankruptcy court

order under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). See In re Dwek, C.A. No. 10-4259 (MLC), 2011 WL 487582, at *4

(D.N.J. Feb. 4, 2011) (refusing to address whether appeal to district court would materially advance

litigation), aff'd, 2011 WL 1322292 (D.N.J. Mar. 31, 2011); In re Barsan Contractors, C.A. No. 10- 3081, 2010 WL 3907116, at *5 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2010) (refusing to address whether appeal to district

court would materially advance litigation); In re Novergence, Inc., C.A. No. 08-1882, 2008 WL

5136842, at *3 (D.N.J. Dec. 5, 2008). The assertion that "[c]orrecting [a jurisdictional] error would

not 'materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation" is not supported by their cited

authority. See Jackson Hewitt, Inc. v. DJSG Utah Tax Serv., LLC, C.A. No. 2:10-cv- 05108(DMC)(JAD), 2011 WL 601585, at *2 (D.N.J. Feb. 17, 2011) (not involving a question of

subject matter jurisdiction). To be sure, Third Circuit authority demonstrates the seriousness of a

subject matter jurisdiction error. See United States v. Troup, 821 F.2d 194, 197 (3d Cir. 1987) ("[I]f

we speak without subject matter jurisdiction, our utterances are tainted precedent."); Joyce v. United

States, 474 F.2d 215, 219 (3d Cir. 1973) ("Where there is no jurisdiction over the subject matter, there 

is, as well, no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction.").

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 15 of 18 PageID: 2774
10

II. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING APPEAL.

In arguing against a stay, Plaintiffs again stray from the critical issues. A request for a

stay in connection with a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal is the normal course, and is

not "premature" as Plaintiffs state. See, e.g., N.J. Prot. & Advocacy, Inc., 2008 WL 4692345, at

*4 (staying proceedings in connection with certification of interlocutory appeal on subject matter 

jurisdiction grounds). Section 1292(b) expressly authorizes a party to request such a stay from

the district court in connection with a motion to certify an interlocutory appeal. Moreover, the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require a party to seek a stay from the district court before

petitioning the appellate court for the same relief. See Fed. App. R. 8(a)(1) ("party must

ordinarily move first in the district court" for, among other things, a stay). The appeal is likely to succeed on the merits, because placing the burden on Defendants

to disprove subject matter jurisdiction rises to the level of reversible error. Indeed, Plaintiffs

agree that the burden to demonstrate subject matter jurisdiction belonged on them. (Pl. Br. at 6.)

The Opinion stated otherwise. (Op. at 7.) Plaintiffs wrongly argue that "litigation expenses do

not constitute irreparable harm," citing a case refusing to allow a party to litigate in federal court

before exhausting its administrative remedies. (Pl. Br. at 21 (citing Boise Cascade Corp. v. FTC, 498 F. Supp. 772, 778 (D. Del. 1980)).) To the contrary, avoidance of unnecessary burdens and

expenses are perfectly appropriate reasons to stay proceedings, particularly when subject matter

jurisdiction issues are involved. Levine, 285 F. Supp. 2d at 565-66 (staying proceedings pending 

interlocutory appeal on subject matter jurisdiction grounds); N.J. Prot. & Advocacy, Inc., 2008

WL 4692345, at *4 (same); see also In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 208 F.R.D. 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2002) (staying proceedings pending appeal, "to conserve the resources of all

parties" where appeal "could dispose of this litigation"); Alliance to End Repression v. Rochford, 

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 16 of 18 PageID: 2775
11

75 F.R.D. 441, 447 (N.D. Ill. 1977) (staying proceedings pending appeal, where there was a

"possibility that needless discovery might occur" if the decision were reversed).

Finally, there simply is no basis for Plaintiffs' continued assertions that the Delaware

Action will not adequately protect the class. The Delaware Court of Chancery has managed

class actions asserting state law fiduciary claims for decades upon decades. Its expertise is not

subject to serious debate. See, e.g., William H. Rehnquist, The Prominence of the Delaware

Court of Chancery in the State-Federal Joint Venture of Providing Justice, 48 BUS. LAW. 351

(1992). The same claims at issue here are before the Delaware Court of Chancery, on behalf of

the same class of Medco shareholders. Claims will not become moot and no harm will befall the 

class. The truth is, Plaintiffs are desperate to move forward here because a stay might jeopardize 

its counsels' potential fee. See, e.g., In re Compellent Techs., Inc. S'holder Litig., C.A. No. 6084- VCL, Tr. at 20 (Del. Ch. Jan. 13, 2011) ("[I]f you then go and file in another forum" a plaintiff

can "get control of a piece of the litigation for purposes of the fee negotiations.") (October 11, 2011 Certification of Joseph P. LaSala, Ex. A.)

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 17 of 18 PageID: 2776
12

CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, Express Scripts requests that the Court certify the Order

for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and stay these proceedings pending resolution 

of that appeal.

Robert J. Del Tufo

Andrew Muscato

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

 MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

(A Delaware Limited Liability Partnership)

4 Times Square

New York, NY 10036

Tel.: (212) 735-3000

Fax: (212) 735-2000

Robert.DelTufo@skadden.com

Andrew.Muscato@skadden.com

OF COUNSEL:

Edward P. Welch 

Edward B. Micheletti

Cliff C. Gardner

SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,

 MEAGHER & FLOM LLP

(A Delaware Limited Liability Partnership)

One Rodney Square

P.O. Box 636

Wilmington, Delaware 19899-0636

Tel.: (302) 651-3000

Fax: (302) 651-3001

DATED: October 11, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Joseph P. La Sala

Joseph P. La Sala 

MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY 

& CARPENTER, LLP

1300 Mount Kemble Avenue

P.O. Box 2075

Morristown, NJ 07962-2075 

Tel.: (973) 993-8100

Fax: (973) 425-0161

Jlasala@mdmc-law.com

Attorneys for Defendants Express 

Scripts, Inc., Aristotle Holding, Inc., 

Aristotle Merger Sub, Inc. and Plato 

Merger Sub, Inc.

Case 2:11-cv-04211-DMC -MF Document 74 Filed 10/11/11 Page 18 of 18 PageID: 2777