
    The MUECKE COMPANY, INCORPORATED; Bruce Rogers, Individually and doing business as Rogers Pharmacy; Brookshire Brothers Pharmacy of Kirbyville, Texas; De La Rosa Pharmacy, Incorporated; Hometown Pharmacy, L.C.; Robert Kinsey Investments, Incorporated, doing business as Kinsey’s Pharmacy, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. CVS CAREMARK CORPORATION; CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated; Caremark RX, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 12-40475.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 11, 2013.
    Miguel Sergio Rodriguez, Isabelle Maria Antongiorgi, Attorney, David Erwin Dun-ham, Esq., Donald Ray Taylor, Attorney, Taylor Dunham, L.L.P., Austin, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
    Robert Harl Griffith, William James Katt, Jr., Esq., Foley & Lardner, L.L.P., Chicago, IL, Scott A. Brister, Esq., Andrews Kurth, L.L.P., Austin, TX, Michael D. Leffel, Foley & Lardner, L.L.P., Madison, WI, Cameron Phair Pope, Esq., Andrews Kurth, L.L.P., Houston, TX, Timothy E. Taylor, Attorney, Andrews Kurth, L.L.P., Dallas, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
    Before DeMOSS, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated, Care-mark Rx, L.L.C., and CVS Caremark Corporation (“Appellants”) appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to compel arbitration of claims brought against them by the Appellees, a group of pharmacies. The parties do not dispute that the arbitration agreements in question were not signed by Appellants, only (at most) by Appellees. Thus, Appellants rest their request for arbitration upon the doctrine of equitable estoppel, and our review of the district court’s decision is for abuse of discretion. Noble Drilling Servs., Inc. v. Certex USA, Inc., 620 F.3d 469, 472-73 & n. 4 (5th Cir.2010).

We have carefully reviewed the pertinent portions of the record in light of the parties’ briefs and oral arguments. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel arbitration as to the claims against Appellants.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cut. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     