Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Navegar Network Alliance, LLC, v. Sutter East Bay Hospitals & Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

August 7, 2017

NAVEGAR NETWORK ALLIANCE, LLC, ET AL.
v.
SUTTER EAST BAY HOSPITALS & QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC.

         SECTION: "A" (3)

          ORDER AND REASONS

          JAY C. ZAINEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The following motions are before the Court: Motion to Compel Arbitration and/or Stay (Rec. Doc. 18) filed by defendant Sutter East Bay Hospitals; Motion to Stay Claims Pending Arbitration (Rec. Doc. 22) filed by defendant Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. Plaintiffs Navegar Network Alliance, LLC f/k/a Navigant Network Alliance, LLC, and UNO Health International, Inc. oppose the motions. The motions, submitted on July 26, 2017, are before the Court on the briefs without oral argument. For the reasons that follow, the motions are GRANTED.

         I. Background

         This dispute arises out of an August 2016 contract (Laboratory Services Agreement) between Navigant Network Alliance, LLC (n/k/a Navegar Network Alliance, LLC) and Sutter East Bay Hospitals. (Rec. Doc. 1-1 Exhibit A). Under the terms of the Agreement, Navigant was to direct medical patient specimens from its Referral Sources (medical providers with whom Navigant had cultivated a relationship) to Sutter for laboratory testing. When confirmatory testing was required, Navigant made arrangements with a reference lab. In January 2017, Navigant contracted with Poydras Healthcare Advisors, LLC (“PHA”), which had relationships with reference labs. (Rec. Doc. 1-1 Exhibit B). Plaintiff UNO Health International, Inc. maintains a network of medical testing laboratories. PHA allegedly assigned its payment rights under the Navigant/PHA contract to UNO. (Petition at 5 n.1).

         The Agreement between Navigant and Sutter was for a two year term unless terminated earlier. The Agreement contained express termination provisions such that either party could terminate the Agreement immediately for cause, or with at least ninety (90) days prior written notice if without cause. (Rec. Doc. 1-1 Exhibit A at 2 ¶ 3).

         According to Sutter, it began to experience mounting problems with Navigant's management and billing methods. On May 3 (or 17th), 2017, Sutter terminated the Agreement but expressly did so without cause. Sutter informed the medical providers (from Navigant's Referral Sources) to send their specimens to Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories. Quest is a competitor with whom Navigant had no business dealings related to the Agreement.

         Navigant and UNO filed suit against Sutter in state court on June 26, 2017. Plaintiffs also joined Quest as a defendant. Shortly after filing suit, Plaintiffs persuaded a state court judge to issue a broad TRO against Defendants.[1] Defendants removed the case to this Court and the TRO expired by its own terms 10 days after it was issued. (Rec. Doc. 64-Court's Order denying as moot motions to dissolve the TRO).

         Sutter now moves to compel Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims as required by the Agreement. Quest moves to stay the claims asserted against it pending the arbitration between Plaintiffs and Sutter.

         II. Discussion

         Sutter's Motion

         Sutter and Navigant were the only two parties to the Laboratory Services Agreement. The Agreement expressly states that California law governs. (Rec. Doc. 1-1 Exhibit A ¶ 9.4). The Agreement has a section entitled Dispute Resolution, which reads:

Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, including any questions regarding its existence, interpretation, validity or termination , will be referred to and definitely resolved by binding arbitration pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et seq., and the arbitration will be administered in accordance with the Streamlined Rules of Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS) rules applicable to commercial arbitrations. The place of arbitration will be Alameda County, California. The judgment of the arbitration tribunal will be accompanied by a written statement of the basis for such ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.