CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al v. Press America, Inc.
Plaintiff: CVS Pharmacy, Inc. and Caremark RX, L.L.C.
Defendant: Press America, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2017cv00190
Filed: January 10, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: XX Out of State
Presiding Judge: Gregory H. Woods
Nature of Suit: Other Contract
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 27, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 113 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Press America, Inc., 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Caremark RX, L.L.C. For the reasons described above: Pres s America is granted summary judgment against CVS in the amount of $560,354.97 in respect of its counterclaims. CVS's motion for summary judgment with respect to the counterclaims is denied. Press America is granted summary judgment dis missing CVS's common law indemnity and negligence claims; CVS's motions with respect to those claims are denied. Press America is granted summary judgment with respect to its asserted liability for reimbursement of the $1.845 milli on penalty payment to IBM either as a result of its contractual indemnification obligations, or as damages for breach of contract; CVS's motions with respect to those matters are denied. Press America is granted summary judgment with respe ct to CVSs claims for reimbursement of attorneys' fees in connection with this litigation; CVSs motions with respect to those claims are denied. CVS is granted summary judgment with respect to its claim that Press America breached the MSA an d Business Associate Agreement. However, summary judgment is denied with respect to its claim for damages as a result of the breach. The amount of damages to which it is entitled will be determined at trial. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the motions pending at Dkt. Nos. 81 and 85. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 3/27/2019) (anc)
January 3, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 62 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 44 MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint filed by Press America, Inc. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants motion to dismiss is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motion at ECF No. 44. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 1/3/2018) (mro)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: CVS Pharmacy, Inc. et al v. Press America, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
Represented By: Adam Gregory Pence
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Caremark RX, L.L.C.
Represented By: Adam Gregory Pence
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Press America, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?