3 R Health Care Products v. Cardinal Health 110

── 3 R Health Care Products v. Cardinal Health 110 ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 241911 SECOND DIVISION May 26, 2026 No. 1-24-1911 ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ 3 R HEALTH CARE PRODUCTS, INC., ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County ) v. ) 2024 L 1538 ) CARDINAL HEALTH 110, LLC, and ) THE DEPARTMENT OF CENTRAL ) Honorable MANAGEMENT SERVICES, ) Daniel J. Kubasiak, ) Judge Presiding Defendants-Appellees. ) _____________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE ELLIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Van Tine and Justice McBride concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 In 2021, Illinois sought bidders for a long-term commitment to supply various state agencies with pharmaceutical goods. The bidding statute required that bidders subcontract a certain amount of work to disadvantaged business enterprises, or “DBEs.” Plaintiff, 3R Health Care Products, Inc. (“3R”), is a DBE that sought to be a subcontractor for the distributor ultimately awarded the contract, defendant Cardinal Health 110, LLC (“Cardinal”). But 3R never got that chance, as Cardinal obtained a full waiver of the contract’s DBE goal. ¶2 3R alleges the bidder obtained this DBE waiver by misrepresenting 3R’s capabilities to the State. 3R also alleges it was the only DBE qualified to perform the work. Thus, absent those misrepresentations, 3R alleges, Cardinal would have been obligated to include 3R in its bid. No. 1-24-1911 ¶3 In 2024, after Cardinal was awarded the contract, 3R sued to recover for the portion of the contract to which it was allegedly entitled. 3R sought, among other things, damages for breach of contract and tortious interference with business expectancy, as well as a declaration that Cardinal’s contract with the State was invalid. ¶4 The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that 3R did not have standing to bring its claims because the DBE “goal” was just that—a goal, not a legal obligation. So 3R had no cognizable right to a subcontract or to a declaration that the contract was void, nor did 3R allege a cognizable business expectancy. ¶5 We uphold the dismissal of the contract and declaratory-judgment counts, as 3R was not a third-party beneficiary to the contract between Cardinal and the State and thus has no standing to recover for a breach of that contract, to seek a rescission of that contract, or to obtain a declaration that the contract is invalid. ¶6 But we reverse the dismissal of the tortious-interference claim. The allegations of the complaint are sufficient, at the pleading stage, to allege that Cardinal intentionally sabotaged 3R’s statutory right to good-faith consideration as a DBE subcontractor. This right, plus the allegation that plaintiff was the sole qualified subcontractor, is sufficient to plead an actionable business expectancy. We remand for further proceedings. ¶7 BACKGROUND ¶8 As this case is at the pleading stage, we take the facts from the complaint and accept them