BAEC Bulletin - November/December 2022

44 | November/December 2022 | BAEC Bulletin Judgment on the Pleadings

motions as it relates to defendants’ counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relationships, and scheduled a status conference to set a trial date. •

In Carter v. Ciox Health, LLC, 14-cv-06275-FGP-MWP (Aug. 18, 2022)—a putative class action asserting claims: (i) that defendants overcharged patients for copies of medical records in violation of New York Public Health Law (“PHL”) § 18; (ii) for deceptive acts or practices prohibited under New York General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349; and (iii) for unjust enrichment— defendants made a joint motion to dismiss, which was granted in part and denied in part. Defendants then answered and the parties engaged in limited discovery and settlement discussions. Defendants later moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), arguing that a recent decision from the New York Court of Appeals holding that there is no private right of action for violations of PHL § 18 was fatal to plaintiffs’ claims. In response, plaintiffs conceded to judgment on the pleadings on their claim under PHL § 18, but argued that their other claims remained viable independent of their PHL § 18 claim. The Court disagreed, finding that plaintiffs’ theory under GBL § 349 was “dependent on PHL § 18 and does not exist independently.” Thus, while plaintiffs “may feel taken advantage of . . . that does not mean they were, or that they have pled that they were, materially deceived.” The same was true regarding plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claim, with the Court observing: “try as they might to make it something different, Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint and [unjust enrichment] claim boil down to Defendants making a profit . . . [a]nd that cannot serve as the basis of an unjust enrichment claim.” Accordingly, the Court granted defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint. Judgment on the Pleadings In Mrs. U.S. Nat’l Pageant, Inc. v. Williams, 18-cv-06587-MWP (Sept. 9, 2022), a producer of beauty pageants brought multiple claims against its former licensee and two pageant businesses that she operates. Defendants asserted counterclaims and, following the completion of discovery, the parties made competing motions for summary judgment. The Court resolved the motions with respect to all claims except defendants’ counterclaim for tortious interference, and invited the parties to submit supplemental briefing because, while labeled in defendants’ pleading as one for “tortious interference with business relationships,” at oral argument, defendants’ counsel contended that defendants were, in fact, asserting a counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relationships. Noting that the difference “is significant, and not merely semantic, because the two types of claims are judged under different standards,” the Court first addressed plaintiff’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact that plaintiff had knowledge of the contractual relationships, let alone that it had induced their breach. In rejecting this argument, the Court found that a letter plaintiff’s counsel sent to certain individuals who had contracted with defendants, which acknowledged their contracts and threatened suit against them, was sufficient evidence to give rise to a reasonable inference that plaintiff had knowledge of those contractual relationships. Turning next to plaintiff’s argument that there was no evidence it acted with malice, but instead had simply relied on advice of counsel, the Court rejected this argument too, finding that the record evidence did not demonstrate the merits of this “advice- of-counsel” defense as a matter of law. In doing so, the Court noted that the assertion of this defense operates as an implied waiver of the attorney-client privilege, and warned plaintiff that unless it affirmatively disclaims reliance on the advice-of- counsel defense, it must disclose certain documents reflecting communications with its counsel. The Court then denied both

Powered by