Manes' Pharmacy, Inc. v. AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
MANES’ PHARMACY, INC. 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	No. 2:22-cv-2186
AMERISOURCEBERGEN DRUG CORPORATION 	DEFENDANT
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiff Manes’ Pharmacy, Inc.’s (“Manes”) motion for temporary
restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 5), and Defendant AmerisourceBergen Drug
Corporation’s (“AmerisourceBergen”) response in opposition (Doc. 16). 	For the reasons given
below, Manes’ request for a temporary restraining order is DENIED, but the Court will DEFER
RULING on Manes’ request for a preliminary injunction until an evidentiary hearing is conducted
on the matter.
This dispute arises between a pharmacy and the pharmacy’s wholesale distributor of,
among other products, controlled substances. Manes is a pharmacy that has served the local Van
Buren, Arkansas community for nearly 40 years. (Doc. 4, p. 2). AmerisourceBergen is a wholesale
distributor of pharmaceutical products, including controlled substances. (Doc. 16, p. 4). Manes
alleges that it has purchased pharmaceuticals from AmerisourceBergen for over 15 years. (Doc.
4, p. 3). 	Manes purchases “many different medications” from AmerisourceBergen’s facility in
Tulsa, Oklahoma. 	Id. 	According to AmerisourceBergen, the wholesaler sells Manes both
controlled and non-controlled substances. (Doc. 16, p. 10).
The crux of this dispute and the instant motion arise from AmerisourceBergen’s decision
Case 2:22-cv-02186-TLB Document 17 Filed 12/09/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
to restrict its sale of controlled substances and listed chemicals to Manes.1 In a November 2, 2022
letter memorializing that decision, AmerisourceBergen explained that members of its Controlled
Substance Monitoring Program reviewed Manes’ dispensing practices and identified several “red
flags.” (Doc. 4, p. 400; Doc. 16-4). Specifically, AmerisourceBergen was concerned that Manes:
(1) dispensed controlled substances for prescriptions from family/general practitioners; (2)
dispensed combinations of opioids and benzodiazepines; (3) dispensed multiple controlled
substances in the same therapeutic class concurrently; and (4) dispensed controlled substances to
a dentist in large quantities. Id. Manes was given the opportunity to dispute or respond to these
allegations in writing. Id.
Manes responded to the letter and indicated that it would change its dispensing practices
to comply with AmerisourceBergen’s letter. 	(Doc. 4, p. 404). 	Manes’ owner also requested
reconsideration of AmerisourceBergen’s decision to cease sales, stating “I am willing to do what
ever I have to do to avoid suspension of sales of controlled substances.” Id. AmerisourceBergen
acknowledged receipt of the reconsideration request the same day. 	(Doc. 4, p. 406). 	Six days
later, AmerisourceBergen sent a second letter stating that Manes’ letter did not adequately address
its concerns. 	(Doc. 4, p. 411; Doc. 16-5). 	AmerisourceBergen indicated that its restriction of
controlled substance sales to Manes would go into effect on November 30, 2022. Id.
Manes sued AmerisourceBergen on December 2, 2022 in Arkansas state court for breach
of contract, tortious interference with business expectancy, and violation of the United States and
Arkansas Constitutions’ procedural due process clauses. 	(Doc. 4). 	Manes contemporaneously
filed this motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, seeking an order
1 For convenience, controlled substances and listed chemicals will collectively be referred
to as “controlled substances” throughout this Opinion and Order.
Case 2:22-cv-02186-TLB Document 17 Filed 12/09/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
requiring AmerisourceBergen to continue its sale of controlled substances to Manes. 	(Doc. 5).
AmerisourceBergen removed the case to this Court on December 6, premising its removal on both
diversity and federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 2). Because of the need for timely resolution of
the temporary restraining order, the Court ordered AmerisourceBergen to respond to the instant
motion by noon today, December 9, 2022. (Doc. 13). The motion is now ripe for a decision.
Temporary restraining orders are granted according to the same standard as preliminary
injunctions. Tumey v. Mycroft AI, Inc., 27 F.4th 657, 665 (8th Cir 2022). In determining whether
to grant either form of relief, this Court considers four factors: “(1) the threat of irreparable harm
to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction
will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and
(4) the public interest.” Dataphase Sys., Inv. v. C L Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981)
(en banc). The movant has the burden of establishing that injunctive relief is proper. Watkins Inc.
v. Lewis, 346 F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003). While no single factor is dispositive, relief will be
denied if irreparable harm is not shown. 	Id. 	Here, Manes has not shown irreparable harm that
would justify entry of a temporary restraining order.
Manes alleges that if AmerisourceBergen is not enjoined from terminating its sales of
controlled substances to Manes, then Manes “will likely have to close its business after nearly
forty (40) years of service to its communities . . . .” See Doc. 4, ¶ 50. It is true that closure of a
business may constitute irreparable harm. See, e.g., Packard Elevator v. I.C.C., 782 F.2d 112, 115
(8th Cir. 1986) (“Recoverable monetary loss may constitute irreparable harm only where the loss
threatens the very existence of the [petitioner]’s business” (alteration in original)); Rylo Mfg. Co.
v. Eden Servs., 759 F.2d 671, 673 (8th Cir. 1985) (irreparable harm where more than 95% of
business’s annual revenue came from terminated contract). However, Manes does not provide any
Case 2:22-cv-02186-TLB Document 17 Filed 12/09/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
concrete numbers in support of the claim that it is in danger of closure. Instead, Manes asserts that
“there is . . . no current way to quantify said losses . . . .” See Doc. 6, p. 7. But the Court needs
something more than conclusory allegations if it is to make a finding that an injunction is necessary
to prevent Manes from closing down. See, e.g., Mgmt. Registry, Inc. v. A.W. Cos., Inc., 920 F.3d
1181, 1183–84 (8th Cir. 2019).
Furthermore, given the record currently before it, the Court is skeptical that Manes is
actually in imminent danger of shuttering its doors. 	AmerisourceBergen apparently is not
terminating its entire relationship with Manes, but rather is only terminating its sales of controlled
substances to Manes. See Doc. 16-4, p. 2. According to sworn testimony from Duane Stickles,
who is a Senior Director of Diversion Control for AmerisourceBergen, controlled substances
account for only 15% by value of the prescription medications that Manes purchased from
AmerisourceBergen during the first 11 months of 2022. See Doc. 16-1, ¶¶ 30–31. A good deal of
relevant information is not presently available to the Court, such as Manes’ operating expenses,
profit margins, or even what percentage of Manes’ revenues are derived from sales of controlled
substances. 	But the limited information currently in the record indicates that Manes is only in
danger of losing, at most, 15% of its revenues. Of course that is likely a significant hardship, and
the Court does not mean to trivialize it. But the Court is presently unpersuaded that Manes cannot
survive the termination of its ability to purchase controlled substances from AmerisourceBergen,
at least until a hearing can be held on Manes’ request for a preliminary injunction.
Therefore, the Court will deny Manes’ request for a temporary restraining order. The Court
notes that none of its findings or conclusions in this Opinion and Order constitutes law of the case,
and that the Court remains free to change its mind once the record is further developed. See, e.g.,
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Westridge Mall Co., 826 F. Supp. 289, 293 n.2 (D. Minn. 1992) (citing
Case 2:22-cv-02186-TLB Document 17 Filed 12/09/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Berrigan v. Sigler, 499 F.2d 514 (D.C. Cir. 1974)). 	The Court recognizes the urgency of this
matter and will set an evidentiary hearing on Manes’ motion for a preliminary injunction as soon
as reasonably possible. 	That hearing will be set by separate order, after consultation early next
week with the parties’ attorneys regarding their availability.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff Manes’ Pharmacy, Inc.’s motion for
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (Doc. 5) is DENIED IN PART with respect
to Manes’ request for a temporary restraining order.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will DEFER RULING on Manes’ request for
a preliminary injunction. An evidentiary hearing on Manes’ request for a preliminary injunction
will be set by separate order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 9th day of December, 2022.
/s/P. K. Holmes , III
P.K. HOLMES, III
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:22-cv-02186-TLB Document 17 Filed 12/09/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>