Today’s riddle:  A physician sues defendants for defamation.  The defendants move to compel the arbitration clause of a contract the physician used to have with a nonparty.  The defendants win the argument.  What’s the explanation?

The explanation is that, as the court saw it, the defamatory activity alleged by the physician constituted “concerted activity” on the part of the two defendants acting with the nonparty.

Dr. Lopez’s contract with United Healthcare Ins. Co. (UHIC) contained a mandatory arbitration clause.  One day all his patients received a letter on “United Healthcare” letterhead saying that Medicare had sanctioned him and that his prescriptions would no longer be honored.  But it was a case of mistaken identity:  the doctor who was actually sanctioned was a different Dr. Lopez.  Nevertheless, UHIC terminated his contract.

Dr. Lopez filed a defamation suit against UHIC and two of its subsidiaries.  The two subs moved to compel arbitration under the now-terminated UHIC contract.  Dr. Lopez dropped UHIC from the suit.  So when the court considered the motion, only the two subs remained as defendants.

The court’s analysis began with a reminder that federal law favors arbitration.  It then observed that federal law allows nonsignatories to a contract (i.e., the two defendants in this case) to enforce a contractual provision when a signatory (i.e., Dr. Lopez) alleges concerted misconduct by both the nonsignatories and a signatory (i.e., UHIC in this case).  The court ruled that the defamatory activity alleged by Dr. Lopez was concerted activity on the part of the subs and UHIC.

The case is Lopez v. United Health Group, No. 8:14-cv-2925-T-30AEP (M.D.Fla.).