Empirian Health, LLC v. Specialty RX, Inc.

Filing 26

OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED that defendant Specialty RX, Inc.'s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, transfer venue to the District of New Jersey (Doc. 3 ) is denied. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 11/14/2023. (cwl, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
EMPIRIAN HEALTH, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPECIALTY RX, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:22cv639-MHT
(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Empirian Health, LLC brings this lawsuit
against Specialty RX, Inc., asserting claims for breach
of contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.
Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332
(diversity) and 1441 (removal).

This lawsuit is now

before the court on Specialty RX’s motion to dismiss or,
in the alternative, to transfer venue.

For the reasons

set forth below, the motion is denied.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Empirian is incorporated in Delaware and has its

principal place of business in Montgomery, Alabama.

It

“negotiates and arranges manufacturer drug rebates for
long-term

care

pharmacies.”

Compl.

(Doc. 7)

¶ 10.

Specialty RX, a pharmacy whose State of incorporation and
principal

place

of

business

is

New

Jersey,

Empirian’s rebate administration services.

retained
In March

2019, the parties entered a Prescription Administration
Agreement, which had an initial term of 30 months and,
absent a written objection, would automatically renew for
another two-year term.

An exclusivity provision barred

Specialty RX from submitting its rebate claims to any
third-party

providers

during

the

lifespan

of

the

agreement and for an additional six months upon its
termination.
Two weeks after the agreement took effect, Specialty
RX

started

Empirian’s

sending
principal

rebate
place

claims
of

to

business

Empirian
in

at

Alabama.

Specialty RX submitted claims roughly once a month.

At

some point, the parties’ relationship began to sour, and
2

in early 2021, Specialty RX emailed Empirian purporting
to terminate the agreement as of September 5.

Once

September 5 passed, Specialty RX ceased submitting its
claims

to

Empirian

and

retained

the

services

of

a

third-party provider.
Empirian filed suit in a state court in Montgomery,
Alabama, claiming that Specialty RX’s obligations under
the agreement extended through the end of September and
that, in any event, Specialty RX was barred from using
third-party

providers

for

agreement’s

termination.

six

months

Besides

following

the

breach-of-contract

damages, Empirian sought restitution on the theory that
it had overpaid Specialty RX on certain rebate claims and
that Specialty RX had failed to honor the agreement’s
provisions governing reimbursements.

Finally, Empirian

requested a declaratory judgment that Specialty RX was
not entitled to any further rebate payments.
One month later, Specialty RX removed Empirian’s
lawsuit to this court.

Specialty RX also sued Empirian
3

in federal court in New Jersey, “alleging, inter alia,
breach

of

contract

and

conversion

arising

out

of

[Empirian’s] failure to provide Specialty with its full
share of its own rebate payments.”
Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. 4) at 2.

Br. in Support of
Empirian sought to

transfer the New Jersey action to this federal court in
Montgomery,

Alabama.

The

motion

has

been

held

in

abeyance pending this court’s determination of whether
the instant case should be dismissed or transferred.

See

Specialty

No.

RX,

Inc.

v.

Empirian

Health,

LLC,

2:22-cv-6268-SDW (D.N.J. Aug. 8, 2023) (Espinosa, M.J.)
(Doc. 19).

II. MOTION TO DISMISS: LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
With its motion to dismiss, Specialty RX asserts that
that this court lacks person jurisdiction over it.

On a

dismissal motion in which no evidentiary hearing is held,
a plaintiff need establish only a prima-facie case of
jurisdiction.

See Madara v. Hall, 916 F.2d 1510, 1514
4

(11th Cir. 1990).

“The district court must accept the

facts alleged in the complaint as true, to the extent
they are uncontroverted by the defendant’s affidavits.”
Id.

Where the parties’ evidence conflicts, all evidence

relating to jurisdictional facts is to be construed in
the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

See Mutual

Service Ins. Co. v. Frit Indus., Inc., 358 F.3d 1312,
1319 n.6 (11th Cir. 2004).
When a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction,
the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the
exercise of personal jurisdiction over the defendant
comports with certain fundamental requirements.

First,

the requirements of the forum State’s long-arm provision
must be met.

Second, the requirements of the due process

clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution

must

be

met.

See

Olivier

v.

Merritt

Dredging Co., 979 F.2d 827, 830 (11th Cir. 1992).

In

this case, the two are coextensive, as Alabama’s long-arm
provision extends to the limits of due process.
5

Ala. R.

Civ. P. 4.2(b).
The

due-process

requirements.

inquiry,

in

turn,

has

two

First, the defendant must have “certain

minimum contacts” with the forum State and, second, the
exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant must not
offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice.”

Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310,

316 (1945).

a. Minimum Contacts
Personal jurisdiction is of two sorts: “specific”
and “general.”

Here, Empirian alleges only specific

jurisdiction.

To

purposes

of

constitute

specific

minimum

jurisdiction,

the

contacts

for

defendant’s

contacts with the applicable forum must be related to the
plaintiff’s cause of action or have given rise to it;
involve some act by which the defendant purposefully
avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities
within the forum; and be such that the defendant should
6

reasonably
forum.

anticipate

being

haled

into

court

in

the

See SEC v. Carrillo, 115 F.3d 1540, 1542 (11th

Cir. 1997).
This

court

concludes

that

Specialty

RX

has

had

sufficient minimum contacts with the State of Alabama to
satisfy

the

constitutional

jurisdiction.

standards

for

personal

For more than two years, Specialty RX

engaged in an ongoing relationship with an Alabama-based
company

by

entering

a

contract

with

Empirian

submitting rebate claims on about a monthly basis.

and
These

contacts were of no small consequence to Specialty RX,
which amassed millions of dollars in rebate payments
through its dealings with Empirian.
Specialty RX contends that its contacts with Alabama
are constitutionally insignificant for three reasons.
First, none of the conduct that Empirian claims put
Specialty RX in breach of the agreement occurred in
Alabama.
Specialty

The
RX’s

breach-of-contract
dealings

with
7

a

claim

centers

third-party

on

rebate

administration provider, which Specialty RX suggests is
not Alabama-based.

Similarly, Empirian’s restitution

claim concerns rebate funds in Specialty RX’s possession
in New Jersey.

Specialty RX insists that, because the

disputed

conduct

occurred

business

dealings

with

outside
Empirian

of

Alabama,

cannot

its

count

as

constitutionally relevant contacts.
Specialty RX’s theory of personal jurisdiction is
foreclosed by Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.
462 (1985), which held that a contract could be the source
of sufficient minimum contacts between a forum state and
an out-of-state defendant.
King

concerned

out-of-state

breached a contract.
parties

who

Like the instant case, Burger

‘reach

conduct

that

allegedly

The Supreme Court explained “that
out

beyond

one

state

and

create

continuing relationships and obligations with citizens
of another state’ are subject to regulation and sanctions
in

the

other

activities.”

State

for

the

consequences

of

their

471 U.S. at 473 (quoting Travelers Health
8

Ass’n v. Virginia, 339 U.S. 643, 647 (1950)).
is true here.

The same

Specialty RX entered a contract with an

Alabama-based company and can be constitutionally held
to

answer

in

contractual

Alabama

duties,

for

even

failing

if

its

to

fulfill

alleged

its

misconduct

occurred outside the State.
Second, Specialty RX insists that at no point during
its dealings with Empirian did it avail itself of Alabama
law.

The court disagrees.

“To determine whether there

has been purposeful availment of a state’s laws, the
court ...

inquires

whether

the

defendant

had

a

‘deliberate’ or merely a ‘fortuitous’ contact with the
state.”
1179

Bowling v. Founders Title Co., 773 F.2d 1175,

(11th

hard-pressed

Cir.
to

1985).
argue

Specialty

that

a

RX

contract

would

between

be
two

sophisticated corporations that contemplated a long-term
business relationship was merely “fortuitous.”
contrary,

Specialty

sufficiently

regular

RX’s
and

contacts

with

long-lasting
9

On the

Alabama
to

were

constitute

purposeful availment.
Third and finally, Specialty RX asserts it could not
have reasonably foreseen being haled into Alabama when
Empirian was incorporated in Delaware, and the agreement
contained a choice-of-law provision invoking Delaware
law.

Specialty

corporation

RX

that

casts

itself

contracted

as

“a

with

New
a

Jersey

Delaware

company ... to provide services to the Defendant (in New
Jersey).”

Br. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. 4) at

7 (emphasis in original).

But Specialty RX had ample

notice that Empirian’s principal place of business was
in Alabama.
contract

was

The only address Empirian provided in the
in

Montgomery,

not

Delaware.

See

Prescription Administration Agreement (Doc. 7-3) at 6;
see also id. at 25.

Indeed, when Specialty RX wished to

renegotiate certain provisions of the agreement, it sent
a letter to Empirian’s Montgomery address.
(Doc. 7) ¶ 5.

See Compl.

After years of transacting business with

an Alabama-based company and profiting millions from the
10

exchange, Specialty RX cannot now claim to be blindsided
that a dispute under the Agreement might be litigated in
Alabama.
In

sum,

the

court

finds

that

Specialty

RX

intentionally forged an ongoing relationship with an
Alabama-based business and engaged with Empirian on about
a monthly basis.

The minimum contacts test is satisfied.

b. Fair Play and Substantial Justice
In evaluating whether the exercise of jurisdiction
comports with fair play and substantial justice, the
court must consider such factors as the burden on the
defendant, the forum State’s interest in adjudicating the
dispute, the plaintiff’s interest in obtaining convenient
and effective relief, the interstate judicial system’s
interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of
controversies, and the shared interest of the several
States

in

policies.

furthering

fundamental

substantive

See Burger King, 471 U.S. at 477.
11

social

Specialty RX submits that forcing it to defend the
suit in Alabama violates basic principles of fairness
when it “merely sat at home in New Jersey and allowed
Empirian to process and collect [its] rebate claims and
payments.”

Reply (Doc. 25) at 7.

However it conceives

of its relationship with Empirian, Specialty RX fails to
articulate

why

inconvenient

it

to

would

have

a

be

fundamentally

corporate

defendant

unfair

or

defend

lawsuit where the contract it entered was performed.

a

The

burden on Specialty RX in defending the suit in Alabama
is

slight,

especially

transportation.

given

modern

modes

of

Moreover, Alabama has a substantial

interest in ensuring that companies that conduct business
within its borders have a convenient means of vindicating
their contractual rights.

Nor is there anything in the

record to suggest that haling Specialty RX into Alabama
undermines the interstate judicial system’s interest in
efficiency.

The court can therefore constitutionally

exercise personal jurisdiction over Specialty RX.
12

III. MOTION TO DISMISS: IMPROPER VENUE
Specialty

RX

asserts

that

Empirian’s

complaint

should be dismissed for improper venue under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b). See Br. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. 4)
at 8.

But the general venue statute does not apply to

removed actions: “once a case is properly removed to
federal court, a defendant cannot move to dismiss on
§ 1391 venue grounds.”

Hollis v. Fla. State Univ., 259

F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).

Because Specialty RX

removed this lawsuit to federal court, the court denies
the motion to dismiss to the extent it asserts improper
venue.

IV. MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Specialty RX next argues that the case should be
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey, where Specialty RX has a similar lawsuit
pending against Empirian.

Specialty RX invokes 28 U.S.C.
13

§ 1404(a), which authorizes a district court to transfer
a civil action to any other district in which it might
have been brought “for the convenience of parties and
witnesses, in the interest of justice.”
“Because federal courts normally afford deference to
a plaintiff’s choice of forum, the burden is on the movant
to show that the suggested forum is more convenient or
that

litigation

justice.”

there

would

be

in

the

interest

Carroll v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 910 F.

Supp. 2d 1331, 1333 (M.D. Ala. 2012) (Thompson, J.).
district

of

court

has

broad

discretion

in

weighing

“A
the

conflicting arguments as to venue, but must engage in an
individualized, case by case consideration of convenience
and

fairness.”

Id.

(quotation

marks

and

citations

omitted).
“In resolving a § 1404(a) motion, the court first
determines whether the action could have originally been
brought in the proposed district of transfer,” and, “if
so, the court then weighs the convenience of the parties
14

and considers interests of justice to determine whether
a transfer is appropriate.”
Empirian

does

not

Id.

dispute

that

this

case

could

originally have been brought in the District of New
Jersey. “Accordingly, the court’s inquiry focuses solely
on whether the balance of justice and convenience favors
transfer. In making this determination, courts generally
consider a number of non-exhaustive factors, including
the following: the plaintiff’s initial choice of forum;
the convenience of the parties; the relative means of the
parties; the convenience of the witnesses; the relative
ease of access to sources of proof; the availability of
compulsory

process

for

witnesses;

the

location

of

relevant documents; the financial ability to bear the
cost of the change; and trial efficiency.”

Id.

The court will first examine whether these factors
militate

in

favor

of

transfer

before

discussing

the

extent to which the pendency of Specialty RX’s New Jersey
action should influence the § 1404(a) analysis.
15

a. The § 1404 Factors
Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum.

Empirian’s principal

place of business is in the forum originally chosen for
this litigation: the state court in Montgomery, Alabama.
Empirian’s choice of forum in its home State should
receive considerable weight and “should not be disturbed
unless it is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”
Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253, 260
(11th Cir. 1996) (quoting Howell v. Tanner, 650 F.2d 610,
616 (5th Cir. 1981)).1
Convenience of the Parties.

“When evaluating the

relative convenience of the parties, [t]ransfer should
be denied if it would merely shift inconvenience from one
party to another.”

Carroll, 910 F. Supp. 2d at 1334

(quoting Kolodziej v. Mason, No. 1:10-cv-2012-JEC, 2011
WL 2009467, at *8 (N.D. Ga. May 20, 2011) (Carnes, C.J.)).

1. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209
(11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the
decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior
to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
16

Specialty RX asserts that, because it is “a New
Jersey corporation” and Empirian is a “Delaware company,”
litigating this dispute in Alabama would be inconvenient
for the parties.

Br. in Support of Mot. to Dismiss

(Doc. 4)

But

at

incorporation

12.
does

a

not

corporate

party’s

state

of

necessarily

reflect

where

it

conducts business, much less where it can conveniently
litigate a dispute.

Nothing in the record suggests that

Empirian has any presence in Delaware that would allay
the

inconvenience

of

litigating

District of New Jersey.

this

lawsuit

in

the

Granting Specialty RX’s motion

would only shift the burden of litigating out-of-state
to Empirian.

Because Specialty RX has not claimed that

retaining this action in Alabama would pose any special
inconvenience, the court finds this factor is neutral.
Relative Means of the Parties.
that

Empirian,

in

providing

Specialty RX insists

services

to

pharmacies

nationwide, “is more accustomed, and able, to litigate
its claims outside of its ‘home state.’”
17

Br. in Support

of Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. 4) at 13.

But taking Empirian’s

allegations as true, which the court must on a motion to
dismiss, Empirian conducts its business in Alabama, not
where its clients are located.

See Compl. (Doc. 7) ¶ 6.

Receiving and processing rebate claims in Alabama from
companies across the country does not necessarily mean
that

Empirian

litigate

this

is

better-positioned

matter

outside

its

financially

home

State.

to
Both

parties are sophisticated corporations, and the record
presents no reason to doubt that either one could fund
out-of-state travel as needed.

The court finds this

factor is neutral.
Convenience

of

the

Witnesses.

A

court

cannot

evaluate which forum will be more convenient for the
witness without knowing who the witnesses might be, what
knowledge they have about the litigation, and where those
witnesses are located.

“If the moving party merely has

made a general allegation that necessary witnesses are
located in the transferee forum, without identifying them
18

and

providing

sufficient

information

to

permit

the

district court to determine what and how important their
testimony will be, the motion to transfer should be
denied.”

15 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3851 (4th ed.

2023).
Specialty RX does not name a single witness in its
motion.

It alludes to a third-party rebate services

provider--which,

like

Specialty

RX,

is

not

Alabama-based--but conclusory assertions that one forum
will be more convenient for an unnamed witness cannot
sustain Specialty RX’s burden.

This factor is therefore

neutral.
Access to Sources of Proof. Specialty RX’s assertion
that the District of New Jersey offers superior access
to evidence suffers precisely the same defect.
movant’s

burden

to

“establish

the

location

It is the
of

the

[sources of proof], their importance to the resolution
of the case, and the inability to move or copy them
easily.”

15 Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3853 (4th ed.
19

2023)).

Again,

Specialty

RX

does

not

identify

any

documents or records that would be more accessible in New
Jersey.

Instead, it assumes that, because Empirian’s

complaint takes issue with business decisions Specialty
RX made from its corporate headquarters, “the facts and
documents relevant to the subject litigation” will be
“located in the District of New Jersey.”

Br. in Support

of Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. 4) at 13.
Specialty RX may be right, or it may not be.

The

court cannot know without a better understanding of what
evidence is most germane to the litigation and where that
evidence is located.

A bare allegation that the District

of New Jersey offers better access to sources of proof
falls far short of satisfying Specialty RX’s burden.
This factor, too, is neutral at best.
Locus of Operative Facts.

“In determining the locus

of operative facts, the court must look at ‘the site of
the events from which the claim arises.’”

Nat’l Tr. Ins.

v. Pennsylvania Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 223 F. Supp.
20

3d 1236, 1245 (M.D. Fla. 2016) (Howard, J.) (quoting
Charter Oak Fire Ins. v. Broan-Nutone, L.L.C., 294 F.
Supp. 2d 218, 220 (D. Conn. 2003) (Hall, J.)).

“When

there are multiple loci of operative facts and no single
locus is primary in this respect, courts treat this
factor neutral in the Section 1404(a) analysis.”

Combs,

461 F. Supp. 3d at 1211-12.
In this case, New Jersey and Alabama are both loci
of operative facts.

On the one hand, the agreement was

performed mostly in Alabama, where Empirian processed
Specialty RX’s rebate claims, and Empirian’s declaratory
judgment claim concerns funds currently in Empirian’s
possession.

Conversely,

breached

agreement

the

the

conduct

occurred

in

that

New

allegedly

Jersey,

and

Empirian’s restitution claim seeks funds in Specialty’s
possession there.
The court finds that the “locus of operative facts”
factor is either neutral (insofar as it involves multiple
loci) or weighs in Specialty RX’s favor, as the gravamen
21

of Empirian’s complaint addresses Specialty RX’s dealings
with a third-party provider.

But to the extent this

factor favors Specialty RX, it does so “only slightly.”
See Carroll, 910 F. Supp. 2d at 1341 (quoting Fedonczak
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 2:10-cv-61-MEF,
2010 WL 1856080, at *4 (M.D. Ala. May 4, 2010) (Fuller,
J.)).
Interests of Justice.

Claiming that the “interests

of justice” weigh in its favor, Specialty RX relies on
many of the same arguments it advanced for why the court
lacks personal jurisdiction: that the alleged breach of
the agreement occurred in New Jersey; that Specialty RX
lacks

sufficient

ties

to

Alabama;

and

that

forcing

Specialty RX to litigate this action in Alabama would be
unfair.
unmoved.

For the reasons already discussed, the court is
Nor does the record furnish any other basis to

believe that the interests of justice would be disserved
by this court retaining the case.
this final factor is also neutral.
22

The court finds that

Having considered the § 1404(a) factors,2 the court
cannot conclude that the case should be transferred to
the District of New Jersey.

The court cannot identify

any factor that counsels strongly enough in favor of
transfer to overcome the deference given to Empirian’s
choice of forum.

b. Specialty RX’s New Jersey Action
Specialty RX maintains that no deference is owed to
Empirian’s
Specialty

choice
RX

of

already

forum
has

a

for

two

similar

reasons:
lawsuit

first,
pending

against Empirian in New Jersey; and, second, Specialty
RX contends that Empirian filed the instant action in a
strategic attempt to avoid out-of-state litigation.
Generally,

“[w]here

two

actions

involving

overlapping issues and parties are pending in two federal

2. Neither party discusses the availability of
compulsory process or the alternative forum’s familiarity
with the governing law. The court is left to conclude
that these factors do not support transfer.
23

courts, there is a strong presumption ... that favors the
forum

of

rule.”

the

first-filed

under

the

first-filed

Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135

(11th Cir. 2005).
would

suit

favor

Alabama

one

Applying the first-filed rule here

Empirian,
month

which

before

filed

its

Specialty

litigation in the District of New Jersey.

complaint
RX

in

initiated
The actions

pending in Alabama and New Jersey both pertain to rebate
funds

that

Specialty

RX

believes

are

withheld

in

violation of the agreement and that Empirian says are not
owed due to Specialty RX’s alleged breach.
claims

may

not

be

identical,

there

is

Although the
enough

of

a

“substantial overlap” for the first-filed case to take
priority.

See Marietta Drapery & Window Coverings Co.

v. N. River Ins. Co., 486 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1370 (N.D.
Ga. 2007) (Story, J.).
The

first-filed

rule

has

an

“anticipatory

suit

exception,” which “applies when one party, on notice of
a potential lawsuit, files a declaratory judgment action
24

in its home forum.”

Collegiate Licensing Co. v. Am. Cas.

Co. of Reading, 713 F.3d 71, 79 (11th Cir. 2013).

The

party that filed first must have done so “upon receipt
of specific, concrete indications that a suit by the
defendant [was] imminent.”

1 Cyc. of Federal Proc.

§ 2:175 (3d ed. 2023) (quoting Youngevity Int’l, Inc. v.
Renew Life Formulas, Inc., 42 F. Supp. 3d 1377, 1383
(S.D. Cal. 2014) (Battaglia, J.)).

In other words, the

exception is triggered when a party attempts to preempt
an impending lawsuit by asking a court to declare that
the disputed conduct was lawful, thereby anchoring the
litigation

in

that

party’s

forum

of

choice.

See

Collegiate Licensing, 713 F.3d at 79.
Specialty RX asserts this exception applies because
Empirian allegedly filed this lawsuit after Specialty RX
insinuated that it had “learned disquieting information
about the inaccuracy of [Empirian’s] rebate payments” and
gave Empirian six days to respond to a settlement offer.
Reply (Doc. 25) at 12.

The instant suit was filed six
25

days

later.

In

its

complaint,

Empirian

seeks

a

“declaratory judgment” that Specialty RX is not entitled
to

any

further

rebate

payments,

which

appears

to

anticipate a lawsuit by Specialty RX for the purportedly
withheld funds.
The issue is a close one.

On the one hand, the

timing of Empirian’s lawsuit and the inclusion of the
declaratory judgment request are suspicious.

Specialty

RX’s allegations suggest that Empirian may have filed the
complaint when it did in an attempt to forum shop.

On

the other hand, Empirian is not merely filing a defensive
declaratory-judgment action but rather asserting its own
rights under the Agreement to breach-of-contract damages
and restitution.
Considering

the

record

as

a

whole,

Specialty’s

allegations of gamesmanship are not convincing enough to
upend the court’s analysis of the § 1404(a) factors,
almost none of which favor transfer.

Even if the court

credits Specialty RX’s contentions, the anticipatory suit
26

exception

is

dismissal.”
still

need

not

“an

obligatory

Manuel, 430 F.3d at 1135.
to

demonstrate

a

rule

mandating

Specialty would

sufficiently

compelling

reason to transfer this case to the District of New
Jersey.

As this court has noted several times now,

Specialty RX has failed to carry that burden.
***
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant Specialty
RX, Inc.’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
transfer venue to the District of New Jersey (Doc. 3) is
denied.
DONE, this the 14th day of November, 2023.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27