Blue Cross Blue Shield units in Arizona, Kansas, North Dakota, Wyoming and New York asked to be dismissed from four class actions in multidistrict litigation accusing the insurer of anti-competitive behavior, saying Friday they have no significant ties to Alabama, where the litigation is centered.
The insurers asked to be dismissed from suits brought by a class of purchasers led by American Electric Motor Services Inc., a class of providers led by chiropractor Jerry L. Conway, a class of subscribers led by Pettus Plumbing & Piping Inc., and a class of subscribers led by accounting firm Pearce Bevill Leesburg Moore PC, arguing there is no personal jurisdiction under the Clayton Act.
“Plaintiffs cannot allege such facts because moving defendants meet none of the indicia of substantially transacting business in the Northern District of Alabama,” Friday’s motion stated. “They do not solicit or advertise in the district. They have no employees or representatives who are located in the district. They do not have offices or own real property in the district. They do not exercise control over any subsidiary or affiliate who transacts business there. They do not offer insurance or other products in the district.”
Counsel for the above four lead plaintiffs did not immediately respond to requests for comment Monday.
The MDL had been created in 2012, when nine antitrust actions in Alabama, North Carolina and Tennessee were consolidated in Alabama federal court. Subscribers of Blue Cross of Oklahoma then sued the company in their own putative class action in February, making similar antitrust claims over the insurer’s alleged efforts to “establish and maintain monopoly power” in health insurance throughout the state.
At the time of the 2012 order, under the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association’s business model, 38 separate Blue plans operated in local areas nationwide under the company’s brand, providing health insurance to approximately 100 million subscribers. The lawsuits generally contend that under normal market conditions the companies would compete against one another, but have instead allocated among themselves regional health insurance markets in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
The defendants filing the motion are represented by Crowell & Moring LLP and Lightfoot Franklin & White LLC.
The American Electric Motor Services plaintiffs are represented by Gustafson Gluek PLLC and NastLaw LLC. The Conway plaintiffs are represented by Podhurst Orseck PA, Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles PC, White Arnold & Dowd PC, the Law Offices of David Balto, Wiggins Childs Pantazis Fisher & Goldfarb LLC, Penn and Seaborn LLC, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Whatley Kallas LLC, Wood Law Firm LLC, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton PA, Simons & Associates Law PA, Eyster Key Tubb Roth Middleton & Adams LLP, Strom Law Firm LLC, Gray & White Law, Axelrod & Dean LLP, Schlichter Bogard & Denton LLP, and Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC. The Pettus Plumbing and Piping plaintiffs are represented by McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC and Bedford Rogers & Bowling PC. The Pearce Bevill Leesburg Moore plaintiffs are represented by Guin Stokes & Evans LLC.
Blue Cross Blue Shield is represented by Maynard Cooper & Gale PC, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard LLP and Wallace Jordan Ratliff & Brandt LLC.
The MDL is In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation, case number 2406, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The individual cases are Conway et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama et al., case number 2:12-cv-02532, American Electric Motor Services, Inc. et al. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama et al., case number 2:12-cv-02169, Pettus Plumbing & Piping Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama et al., case number 3:16-cv-00297, and Pearce Bevill Leesburg Moore PC v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama et al., case number 2:16-cv-00464, all in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Date: June 13, 2016