Obinyan v. Prime Therapeutics LLC et al

Filing 115

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 111 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint filed by Alliance Rx Walgreen Prime. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/5/2020) (Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
OKOEGUALE OBINYAN,
Plaintiff,
VS.
PRIME THERAPEUTICS LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-0933-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
The court denies the January 22, 2020 motion of defendant Walgreens Specialty
Pharmacy Holdings, LLC (“WSPH”) to dismiss pro se plaintiff Okoeguale Obinyan’s
(“Obinyan’s”) first amended complaint.1
WSPH moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss Obinyan’s first amended
complaint on the ground that he does not allege that WSPH was his employer at any relevant
time. The court must liberally construe the allegations of a pro se complaint. See, e.g.,
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally
construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less
stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’” (citation omitted) (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976))); see also Coleman v. United States, 912 F.3d
1

Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written
opinion” adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[]
issued by the court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.”
It has been written, however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case,
and not for publication in an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly.

824, 828 (5th Cir. 2019); Simmons v. Jackson, 2016 WL 2646738, at *2 (N.D. Tex. May 10,
2016) (Fitzwater, J.). Liberally construed, the first amended complaint appears to attempt
to plead that WSPH became Obinyan’s employer as the result of an April 3, 2017
commercial transaction. See Am. Compl. at 1 (“The formation of Joint Venture between
Prime Therapeutics Inc and Walgreens on April 3[,] 2017 moved my Department of
Accounts Receivable to New Company Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy Holding (PBM)
Prime Therapeutics LLC (Prime).”). Considering Obinyan’s pro se status, and the apparently
complicated nature (at least to a pro se litigant) of WSPH’s relationship with Prime’s
employees after the April 3, 2017 transaction,2 the court concludes that Obinyan should be
afforded an opportunity to conduct discovery regarding the corporate entity that employed
him before he must risk dismissal of his suit against WSPH.
Accordingly, the court declines to dismiss this case under Rule 12(b)(6) based on the
first amended complaint. The court expresses no view on whether dismissal may be
warranted later, such as at the summary judgment stage. WSPH’s January 22, 2020 motion

2

WSPH contends in its motion to dismiss that “in March of 2017, WSPH became the
owner of certain pharmacy facilities, such as the Irving, Texas facility where Plaintiff worked
for Prime, and . . . Prime leased its employees to WSPH until December 31, 2017, over two
months after Plaintiff’s employment with Prime ended.” D. Br. 7.
-2-

to dismiss is denied.
SO ORDERED.
March 5, 2020.

_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
SENIOR JUDGE

-3-