Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

An elderly patient, after contracting COVID-19, received remote medical treatment from an out-of-state physician who prescribed multiple medications, including prednisone. Prednisone is known to carry a risk of peptic ulcer disease, especially in older individuals, and the physician did not prescribe mitigating medication to counteract these side effects. The patient subsequently developed a perforated ulcer and died from organ failure. The estate brought suit against the physician for negligence, lack of informed consent, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA).The estate initially filed the action in Connecticut Superior Court, and the physician removed it to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The physician moved to dismiss, arguing immunity under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) and contending the CUTPA claim was not viable. The District Court dismissed the CUTPA claim but denied the motion to dismiss the negligence and informed consent claims, concluding PREP Act immunity did not apply.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the physician qualified for PREP Act immunity because he was a licensed health professional who prescribed a covered countermeasure (prednisone) for COVID-19, and the prescription had a causal relationship with the patient’s death. The court also held that the CUTPA claim was impermissible because it was based on alleged professional negligence rather than business or entrepreneurial conduct. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the CUTPA claim, reversed the District Court’s denial of PREP Act immunity, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Waters v. Kory" on Justia Law

Buyers of over-the-counter nasal decongestants containing oral phenylephrine brought numerous class actions against drug manufacturers and retailers, alleging that for years these companies sold and advertised decongestant products they knew to be ineffective. The plaintiffs claimed that scientific studies, particularly since 2016, had shown oral phenylephrine to be no better than a placebo at relieving congestion, yet the companies continued to market their products as effective decongestants and complied with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) labeling requirements. The FDA, despite mounting evidence, did not remove oral phenylephrine’s designation as an effective decongestant under its regulations.The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated nearly one hundred class actions and transferred them to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting New York statutory and common-law claims as well as a federal RICO claim. The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) expressly preempted the state law claims because the drugs’ labels complied with FDA requirements, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the RICO claim. The court also dismissed a Lanham Act claim brought by one pharmacy plaintiff.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the FDCA expressly preempts most of the state law claims because the federal regime requires manufacturers to follow the FDA-approved labeling, but it vacated the dismissal for claims regarding “Maximum Strength” labeling and brand-name drugs approved via the New Drug Application process, remanding those for further proceedings. The court affirmed dismissal of the RICO claim, adopting the indirect purchaser rule, and upheld denial of the pharmacy’s motion for reconsideration regarding its Lanham Act claim. View "Yousefzadeh v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc." on Justia Law

A professional track and field athlete received a bottle of Gatorade Recovery Gummies at an award ceremony hosted by Gatorade, which were labeled as “NSF Certified for Sport,” indicating independent testing for banned substances. After consuming the gummies, the athlete submitted a routine drug test that later returned positive for cardarine, a banned performance-enhancing drug, resulting in immediate suspension from elite competition. Subsequent investigation revealed that the gummies lot the athlete received had never been NSF certified, and Gatorade was aware of the mislabeling before distributing the product. The athlete suffered significant consequences, including loss of eligibility to compete, loss of a scholarship, and forfeiture of endorsement opportunities.The athlete initiated legal action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging strict products liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, violation of Texas’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, tortious interference with contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The district court dismissed all claims. It found no “cognizable injury outside of purely economic damages” for the strict liability, negligence, and misrepresentation claims, applying New York’s economic loss doctrine. Additional claims were dismissed based on statutory definitions and insufficient allegations of extreme conduct or distress.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. It affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the tortious interference, consumer protection, and emotional distress claims. However, the court recognized uncertainty in New York law regarding tort recovery for nonconsensual bodily changes detectable only by laboratory testing and the boundaries of the economic loss doctrine. Accordingly, the Second Circuit deferred decision and certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals concerning the scope of the economic loss doctrine and whether the athlete’s injury is cognizable in tort under New York law. View "Asinga v. Gatorade Co." on Justia Law

A mother and the Connecticut Fair Housing Center sued a company that provides tenant screening reports, alleging that its practices contributed to the denial of a housing application for the mother’s disabled son. The apartment manager used the defendant’s screening platform to review applicants’ criminal histories, and the son’s application was denied based on a flagged shoplifting charge. The mother later had the charge dismissed. She also sought a copy of her son’s screening report from the defendant, but was told she needed to provide a power of attorney. She instead submitted documentation of her conservatorship, but the defendant rejected it as facially invalid due to a missing court seal.The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut held a bench trial. It found that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) did not apply to the defendant because it was not the decision-maker on housing applications; only the housing provider made those determinations. The district court also found the defendant’s requirement for a valid conservatorship certificate reasonable and not discriminatory toward handicapped individuals. However, the district court found the defendant liable under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for a period when it insisted on a power of attorney, making it impossible for the mother to obtain her son’s consumer file.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the Connecticut Fair Housing Center lacked standing because its diversion of resources to address the defendant’s actions did not constitute a concrete injury. The court also held that, although the FHA does not exclude certain defendants, the defendant here was not the proximate cause of the housing denial, and the mother failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate-impact discrimination. Furthermore, because she never provided a facially valid conservatorship certificate, she could not show that the defendant’s documentation requirements prevented her from obtaining the report. The court vacated, affirmed, and reversed in part, dismissing the Center’s claims, affirming no FHA liability, and reversing FCRA liability. View "CFHC v. CoreLogic Rental Prop. Sols." on Justia Law

A trade association representing the dietary supplement industry challenged a New York law that prohibits the sale of dietary supplements marketed for weight loss or muscle building to individuals under eighteen. The law was enacted in response to concerns about health risks to minors from such supplements. The statute defines covered products based on how they are labeled or marketed, and authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctions against violators. The association argued that the law violates the First Amendment, is unconstitutionally vague, and is preempted by federal law.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the association’s motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the association was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims, had not shown irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest weighed against granting relief. The District Court later dismissed the vagueness and preemption claims but allowed the First Amendment claim to proceed.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The Second Circuit held that the law satisfies intermediate scrutiny under the Central Hudson test for commercial speech, finding that New York has a substantial interest in protecting minors’ health, that the law directly advances that interest, and that it is not more extensive than necessary. The court also concluded that the age verification requirement does not unconstitutionally compel speech, that the statute is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and that it is not preempted by federal law. The court further found that the association failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the public interest favored an injunction. The order denying the preliminary injunction was affirmed. View "Council for Responsible Nutrition v. James" on Justia Law

The City of New York brought suit in New York state court against several major oil companies and the American Petroleum Institute, alleging violations of New York’s consumer protection laws through deceptive advertising about the environmental impact of fossil fuels. The defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting multiple grounds for federal jurisdiction. The City moved to remand the case to state court, but the district court stayed proceedings pending the outcome of a similar case, Connecticut v. Exxon Mobil Corp., in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.After the Second Circuit affirmed the remand in the Connecticut case, the district court in New York lifted the stay and allowed the parties to re-brief the remand motion in light of the new precedent. The City renewed its motion to remand and requested attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The oil companies continued to oppose remand, pressing several arguments that had already been rejected by numerous federal courts, including the Second Circuit in the Connecticut case. The district court granted the motion to remand and awarded the City attorneys’ fees and costs, but only for work related to five of the six grounds for removal, and only for work performed after the Connecticut decision.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed only the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees and costs for the objectively unreasonable grounds for removal pressed after the legal landscape had shifted. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, concluding that the award was justified under the “unusual circumstances” exception recognized in Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp. View "The City of New York v. Exxon Mobil Corp." on Justia Law

Zesty Paws LLC and Health and Happiness (H&H) US International Inc. are competitors of Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. in the pet supplements market. In July 2023, Zesty Paws began advertising itself as the "#1 brand of pet supplements" in the United States. Nutramax objected, asserting that its combined pet supplement sales exceeded those of Zesty Paws, making Zesty Paws’s advertising claims false. Zesty Paws responded by filing a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that its advertising was not false or misleading, arguing that its claims were reasonably interpreted as comparing its aggregate sales to those of Nutramax’s individual product brands, such as Cosequin and Dasuquin, rather than to Nutramax as a whole.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Nutramax’s motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Zesty Paws from making the "#1 brand" claims. The district court found that Nutramax was likely to succeed on its false advertising claim under the Lanham Act, concluding that Nutramax is a brand and that its total sales exceeded those of Zesty Paws, rendering Zesty Paws’s advertising likely literally false. The court also found the claims material, likely to cause injury, and presumed irreparable harm under the Lanham Act.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its decision to issue the injunction for abuse of discretion. The Second Circuit held that the district court erred by not properly applying the literal falsity standard, which requires that the challenged advertising be unambiguously false to a reasonable consumer. Because the district court did not adequately consider whether Zesty Paws’s interpretation was reasonable, the Second Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. View "Zesty Paws LLC v. Nutramax Lab'ys, Inc." on Justia Law

Joanne Sudakow entered into a contract with CleanChoice Energy, Inc. to purchase electricity. The initial agreement, which she accepted in October 2021, did not include an arbitration clause and specified that New York would be the exclusive venue for any lawsuits. About three weeks after the contract was executed, CleanChoice sent Sudakow a “Welcome Package” containing new terms, including an arbitration provision, but Sudakow did not sign or otherwise expressly assent to these new terms. She continued to pay for her electricity service until she terminated it in August 2022.Sudakow later filed a putative class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging breach of contract and deceptive business practices by CleanChoice. CleanChoice moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration provision in the subsequently mailed terms. The district court denied the motion, finding that Sudakow did not have sufficient notice of the arbitration provision and had not assented to it.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration de novo. The Second Circuit held that Sudakow was not bound by the arbitration provision because CleanChoice failed to provide clear and conspicuous notice of the new terms, and a reasonable person would not have understood that making payments constituted assent to those terms. The court also found that the language of the subsequent terms indicated that a signature was required for assent, which Sudakow never provided. Accordingly, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment denying CleanChoice’s motion to compel arbitration. View "Sudakow v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Kimberly-Clark Corporation, alleging that the company falsely advertised its bathroom wipes as flushable, leading consumers to pay a premium and causing plumbing damage. The parties reached a settlement where Kimberly-Clark agreed to pay up to $20 million in compensation to the class and up to $4 million in attorney’s fees. However, class members claimed less than $1 million. The district court approved the settlement under Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and adequate. Objector Theodore H. Frank appealed, arguing that the settlement disproportionately benefited class counsel, who received most of the monetary recovery. Frank contended that the district court failed to properly assess the allocation of recovery between the class and class counsel.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and agreed with Frank that the district court applied the wrong legal standard in its Rule 23(e) analysis. The appellate court clarified that Rule 23(e) requires courts to compare the proportion of total recovery allocated to the class with the proportion allocated to class counsel. The court vacated the district court’s order and judgment approving the settlement and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The appellate court did not reach a conclusion on whether the settlement was fair but emphasized the need for a proper proportionality analysis. View "Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark Corp." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Khalilah Suluki alleged that her mother, Khadijah Suluki, committed identity theft by opening several credit card accounts in her name without permission, including an account with Credit One Bank, N.A. Upon discovering the alleged fraud, Suluki disputed the account with Credit One and the three major national credit reporting agencies (CRAs). Credit One investigated the dispute multiple times and concluded that the account was legitimate and belonged to Suluki. Suluki filed suit, claiming that Credit One violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by failing to conduct a reasonable investigation into her dispute.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Credit One. The court concluded that, regardless of the reasonableness of Credit One's investigation, no reasonable investigation required by the statute would have yielded a different result. The court also found that Suluki did not present any triable issues of fact regarding whether Credit One willfully or negligently violated the FCRA to be liable for damages.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding the accuracy of the information reported and the reasonableness of Credit One's investigations. However, it concluded that no reasonable investigation would have led Credit One to determine that the account was fraudulent or that the information was unverifiable. The court also determined that Suluki could not recover damages because she did not present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that Credit One willfully or negligently violated the FCRA. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the district court's decision. View "Suluki v. Credit One Bank, NA" on Justia Law