Bonner v. Rite Aid Corp., 2:19-cv-00674

Rite Aid maintained DEA‑compliance policies and a four‑step review process requiring pharmacists to report suspicious prescribers via internal "Service Now" tickets and for a central panel to investigate and decide remedial action.
A pharmacist opened a suspicious subscriber ticket concerning Dr. Ernest L. Bonner Jr., and Rite Aid analytics showed an increased percentage of controlled‑substance prescriptions (notably oxycodone) written by Dr. Bonner.
The Rite Aid review panel unanimously decided to stop filling Schedule II–V controlled‑substance prescriptions from Dr. Bonner and sent him written notice effective April 15, 2019; Rite Aid’s policy allowed reconsideration but Dr. Bonner did not seek reevaluation (disputed by Dr. Bonner).
Four of Dr. Bonner’s patients testified that Rite Aid refused to fill particular prescriptions but that they ultimately obtained medications at other pharmacies; three remained his patients and one who left did not attribute the departure to Rite Aid’s actions.
Dr. Bonner sued under diversity jurisdiction asserting claims for UCL, intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage (IIPEA/NIPEA), and defamation; Rite Aid moved for summary judgment.
The court granted summary judgment for Rite Aid, holding Dr. Bonner failed to show the required economic injury for the UCL and interference claims and failed to show publication of any alleged defamatory statements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
UCL standing (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200)	Bonner says Rite Aid’s refusal harmed his practice and reputation, causing economic loss and lost patients.	Rite Aid argues Bonner has no evidence of lost money/property; depositions show patients got meds elsewhere and most remained patients.	Court: Plaintiff lacks injury‑in‑fact and lost‑money evidence; UCL claim dismissed.
IIPEA / NIPEA (interference with prospective economic advantage)	Bonner contends Rite Aid intentionally disrupted economic relationships with patients, causing loss.	Rite Aid says no intentional disruption caused economic harm; patients were able to obtain meds and largely stayed with Bonner.	Court: Plaintiff failed to show actual economic harm; IIPEA and NIPEA dismissed.
Defamation	Bonner alleges Rite Aid employees told patients false statements (license revoked, DEA/FDA investigation, fraud).	Rite Aid points to patient depositions showing no such statements were made to them.	Court: No admissible evidence that defamatory statements were published to third parties; defamation claim dismissed.

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden on movant)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show genuine factual dispute)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and reasonable‑jury standard at summary judgment)
Youst v. Longo, 43 Cal.3d 64 (elements for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage)
Venhaus v. Shultz, 155 Cal.App.4th 1072 (distinction for negligent interference claim regarding intent)
Cel‑Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal.4th 163 (UCL comprises unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent practices)
Birdsong v. Apple, Inc., 590 F.3d 955 (UCL standing requires injury in fact and loss of money or property)
Taus v. Loftus, 40 Cal.4th 683 (elements of defamation under California law)
Shively v. Bozanich, 31 Cal.4th 1230 (publication element for defamation)
Smith v. Maldonado, 72 Cal.App.4th 637 (single‑person publication suffices for defamation)
Improvement Co. v. Munson, 81 U.S. 442 (standards for sufficiency of evidence for jury consideration)