A federal judge in Pennsylvania has denied Rite Aid’s attempts to hold a customer to an arbitration provision in a contract, rejecting the pharmacy’s argument that the customer was bound to the contract under the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

In a March 30 opinion, U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Rite Aid’s motion to compel arbitration from plaintiff Diane Scavello, after determining Scavello wasn’t bound to the contract as her claims in her complaint did not seek to enforce Rite Aid’s contractual obligation to report “usual and customary” prices to Optum, nor did she “knowingly s[ought] and obtain[ed] direct benefits from that contract.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]