
    Jerry BEEMAN and Pharmacy Services, Inc., doing business as Beemans Pharmacy; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ANTHEM PRESCRIPTION MANAGEMENT, LLC; et al., Defendants-Appellants. Jerry Beeman and Pharmacy Services, Inc., doing business as Beemans Pharmacy; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TDI Managed Care Services, Inc., doing business as Eckerd Health Services; et al., Defendants-Appellants.
    Nos. 07-56692, 07-56693.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 30, 2014.
    
    Filed March 19, 2014.
    Alan M. Mansfield, Esquire, The Consumer Law Group, San Diego, CA, Michael A. Bowse, Esquire, Browne George Ross LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.
    Molly Moriarty Lane, Esquire, Thomas M. Peterson, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Michael I. Katz, Esquire, Trial, Thomas Whitelaw & Tyler LLP, Irvine, CA, Martin D. Schneiderman, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC, Thomas Makris, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Sacramento, CA, Brian D. Martin, Esquire, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Diego, CA, Mark L. Brown, Esquire, Rachel Milazzo, Esquire, Stephen M. O’Brien, III, Esquire, Sonnen-schein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, St. Louis, MO, Marina N. Vitek, Roxborough, Pom-erance, Nye & Adreani, Woodland Hills, CA, Sean M. Sherlock, Esquire, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Costa Mesa, CA, Robert Arthur Muhlbach, Kirtland & Packard LLP, El Segundo, CA, Benjamin J. Fox, Esquire, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Kent A. Halkett, Esquire, Musick Peeler & Garrett, LLP, Jason Levin, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Robert F. Scoular, Dentons U.S. LLP, J. Kevin Snyder, Esquire, Dykema Gossett LLP, Brett Linden McClure, Esquire, Margaret Anne Grignon, Esquire, Reed Smith LLP, Matthew Oster, McDer-mott Will & Emery, Neil R. O’Hanlon, Esquire, Hogan Lovells U.S. LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: REINHARDT, SILVERMAN, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellees’ motion to lift the stay of district court proceedings pending disposition of these consolidated interlocutory appeals is GRANTED. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), the district court certified for interlocutory appeal its denials of Appellants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings. Because the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management, LLC, 58 Cal.4th 329, 165 Cal.Rptr.3d 800, 315 P.3d 71 (2013), resolved the Erie issue that animated the district court’s § 1292(b) orders, these appeals are now remanded to the district court for such further proceedings as remain following the district court’s denial of Appellants’ motions for judgment on the pleadings. The remaining motions are moot. Each party shall bear its own costs on appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     