ERx, LLC v. Pioneer Health Services of Oneida, LLC (PLR2), No. 3:2014cv00465 - Document 29 (E.D. Tenn. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons stated in the Court's previous order [R. 20 ], the defendant's motion to dismiss and compel arbitration [R. 23 ] is Granted. The parties are Ordered to submit this dispute to binding arbitration. The plaintiff's complaint is Dismissed in its entirety. Signed by District Judge Pamela L Reeves on 11/20/15. (JBR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ERx, LLC v. Pioneer Health Services of Oneida, LLC (PLR2) Doc. 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE ERx, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Pioneer Health Services of Oneida, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:14-cv-465-PLR-HBG Memorandum Opinion This matter comes before the Court on the defendant’s renewed motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. [R. 23]. After the plaintiff first filed this action, the defendant moved to dismiss and compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the parties’ contract. [R. 8]. The Court found that the alternative dispute resolution provision in the contract required the parties to submit their dispute to mediation first, before arbitration could be ordered. [R. 20]. Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to submit their dispute to mediation, which they did. Unfortunately, they were unable to resolve their differences. [R. 22, Report of Mediation]. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the Court’s previous order [R. 20], the defendant’s motion to dismiss and compel arbitration [R. 23] is Granted. The parties are Ordered to submit this dispute to binding arbitration. 1 The plaintiff’s complaint is Dismissed in its entirety. It is so Ordered. ____________________________________ ____________________________________ __ _ _ ___ _ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE UNIT UNITED STATES DISTRICT T E I T CT CT 1 After the defendant filed its renewed motion to dismiss and compel arbitration, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Based on that motion, the plaintiff asserts that “principals of judicial efficiency favor this Court denying Defendant’s motion and instead disposing of this case on the merits.” In light of the Court’s previous order, holding that the arbitration provision in the contract should be enforced, the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion is a non-starter. The plaintiff can raise the arguments made in that motion before the arbitrator. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
