Wellmark, Inc. D/B/A Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa, an Iowa Corporation, and Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa, Inc., an Iowa Corporation v. Iowa District Court for Polk County
2017 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 15
| Iowa | 2017Background
- Chiropractors sued Wellmark in 2007 alleging discriminatory reimbursement and antitrust violations; the case proceeded as a putative class action but the class was never certified.
- This Court in Mueller I reversed dismissal and remanded plaintiffs’ antitrust claims under the Iowa Competition Act for further proceedings. (Mueller I)
- Plaintiffs later stipulated (pre-certification) that their Fourth Amended Petition alleged only per se antitrust violations and excluded any rule-of-reason theory; the district court then entered summary judgment for Wellmark, concluding no per se violation.
- This Court in Mueller II affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment limited to the per se claim and stated (for stare decisis only) it did not foreclose the possibility of a rule-of-reason claim in a different suit; no remand was issued and procedendo issued.
- After procedendo, plaintiffs sought leave to file a fifth amended petition to reintroduce a rule-of-reason claim in the same case; the new district judge allowed further proceedings. Wellmark sought certiorari to challenge that ruling.
- The Iowa Supreme Court held the prior affirmed summary judgment ended the civil action; the district court lacked jurisdiction to permit the belated rule-of-reason claim in the same case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could accept a post-procedendo amendment to add a rule-of-reason claim in the same case | The summary judgment and Mueller II left the rule-of-reason claim undecided and preserved it for further litigation in this case | Mueller: affirmed summary judgment ended the case; any rule-of-reason claim must be brought in a separate new action | Court held the affirmed summary judgment terminated the district court’s jurisdiction over the case; plaintiffs cannot amend to add the claim post-procedendo |
| Whether the plaintiffs’ precertification stipulation abandoning rule-of-reason required notice to putative class members | Plaintiffs argued stipulation did not extinguish their ability to pursue rule-of-reason and class rules protect putative members | Wellmark: stipulation was binding on the named plaintiffs and induced withdrawal of the stay; no precertification notice was required | Held that the stipulation was binding on named plaintiffs; because no class was certified, no mandatory precertification notice was required under Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.271 |
| Whether pre-certification stipulation binds putative class members | Plaintiffs relied on class-members’ protection and Knowles/Supreme Court precedent | Wellmark argued Knowles precludes binding non-parties but does not invalidate the stipulation as to named plaintiffs | Court explained precertification stipulation binds only named plaintiffs; it does not bind absent putative class members who may sue separately |
| Whether Mueller II’s language left the door open to re-litigate rule-of-reason in same case | Plaintiffs/district court read Mueller II as preserving the rule-of-reason claim for further proceedings in the same file | Wellmark: Mueller II simply limited stare decisis and did not remand or reserve jurisdiction | Court held Mueller II did not remand or reserve jurisdiction; its qualification was about stare decisis only and the case was over after procedendo |
Key Cases Cited
- Mueller v. Wellmark, Inc., 818 N.W.2d 244 (Iowa 2012) (Mueller I) (reversing summary judgment in part and remanding antitrust claims)
- Mueller v. Wellmark, Inc., 861 N.W.2d 563 (Iowa 2015) (Mueller II) (affirming summary judgment on per se claim; no remand)
- Franzen v. Deere & Co., 409 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa 1987) (finality rule: district court loses jurisdiction after affirmed judgment absent remand)
- Standard Fire Ins. Co. v. Knowles, 568 U.S. 588 (2013) (precertification stipulations bind only the named plaintiff, not putative class members)
- Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (2011) (a proposed or rejected class action does not bind nonparties)
- Steel v. Long, 84 N.W. 677 (Iowa 1900) (historical explanation of finality and prevention of endless litigation)