Opinion ID: 1428164
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Janazzo's Standing

Text: As a threshold matter, we note that only one of the named Plaintiffs is required to establish standing in order to seek relief on behalf of the entire class. See 1 ALBA CONTE & HERBERT B. NEWBERG, NEWBERG ON CLASS ACTIONS § 2:6 n. 3 (4th ed. 2002) (To establish Article III standing in a class action, it is not required that each named plaintiff must have a claim against each named defendant. Rather, for every named defendant there must be at least one named plaintiff who can assert a claim directly against that defendant, and at that point standing is satisfied and only then will the inquiry shift to a class action analysis); see also Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775, 788 (2d Cir.1994). Plaintiffs contend that Janazzo represents a Plan with constitutional standing because the County Line Plan was involved in a contractual relationship with Medco during the class period. They assert that, during the first part of the class period, the County Line Plan operated as a self-funded Plan with M.D. Health Plan acting as its third-party administrator, and that, during the later part of the class period, the County Line Plan was fully insured through M.D. Health Plan. Plaintiffs further allege that M.D. Health Plan used Medco to manage its pharmaceutical benefits over the entire class period. Based upon the record before us, we are satisfied that Janazzo has constitutional standing because the County Line Plan was Medco's client during the class period. Plaintiffs produced competent proof in support of County Line's contract with M.D. Health Plan, including: (1) a Third Party Administrative Service Agreement with M.D. Health Plan signed by a County Line representative; (2) a form letter from M.D. Health Plan apparently produced from County Line's files advising clients that it would consolidate its pharmaceutical services under Medco; (3) a letter from M.D. Health Plan to County Line's consultant, Brian Lynch, summarizing the Plan's transfer from self-funding to fully-insured status; (4) a Group Administration Agreement signed by a representative of M.D. Health Plan identifying Lynch as the Agent of Record; (5) a Third Party Administrative Services Run-Out Agreement signed by a representative of M.D. Health Plan and sent to Lynch; (6) Janazzo's applications for group insurance coverage on behalf of County Line listing M.D. Health Plan as Plan Supervisor; (7) copies of Janazzo's and her beneficiary father's drug prescriptions indicating group prescription coverage through M.D. Health Plan and a subsidiary of Medco; (8) invoices showing County Line's payment of premiums to M.D. Health Plan; and (9) Lynch's sworn statement that County Line contracted with M.D. Health Plan with respect to its employee benefits, that he regularly dealt with M.D. Health Plan in assisting County Line, and that M.D. Health Plan in turn used Merck-Medco Managed Care, Inc. (`Medco') for its pharmaceutical services for Countyline Motors. Although each of the formal written agreements between County Line and M.D. Health Plan appears to be signed by only one party, the evidence, viewed in its totality, demonstrates at least an implied contract between the parties since they agreed, either by words or actions or conduct, to undertake [some] form of actual contract commitment. Cweklinsky v. Mobil Chem. Co., 364 F.3d 68, 77 (2d Cir. 2004) (applying Connecticut law). [2] As the District Court correctly held on remand, these documents still ha[ve] evidentiary value of both an intent to execute the [a]greement, and progress toward such execution. The record also establishes a contract for plan management services between M.D. Health Plan and Medco during the time that M.D. Health Plan was involved with the County Line Plan. Significantly, it was Medco that produced documents showing that County Line employees filled drug prescriptions through its pharmaceutical network, and Medco does not dispute that it had a contractual relationship with M.D. Health Plan. Indeed, Plaintiffs have filed under seal in this Court the Integrated Prescription Drug Program Master Agreement between M.D. Health Plan and Medco demonstrating that Medco was the exclusive provider of prescription drug benefits to M.D. Health Plan at that time. We reject the Self-Funded Plans' claim that Janazzo must establish specific financial harm before her Plan has standing, since it conflates a defense to the merits of the Plan's claim against Medco with the requirement to make a threshold jurisdictional showing. In our view, the foregoing evidence supports the District Court's determination that Janazzo's Plan was involved in a contractual relationship with Medco so as to give her standing. Accordingly, we need not reach the issue of standing as it pertains to any of the other named Plaintiffs and instead proceed to the merits of this case. [3]