09-1887 -cv

Mahmu d v . Kauf

mann UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER R U LI N GS BY S U M M A R Y O R D ER D O NO T H A V E PREC EDEN TI A L EFFECT . CI T AT I ON TO S UM M ARY O R D E R S F ILE D A F T E R J A N U A R Y 1, 20 0 7 , I S P E R M ITT E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S LO C A L R U LE 32. 1 A N D F EDER A L R U LE O F A PPELLA TE P R O C EDU R E 32. 1. I N A B R I EF O R O TH ER P A P E R I N WHI C H A L I T I G A N T C I T E S A S U M M A R Y OR D E R , I N E A C H P A R A G R A PH I N W HI C H A C I T A T I ON A P P E A R S , A T L E A S T ON E C I T A T I ON M U S T E I T HE R B E T O T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR BE ACCOM PA NI E D BY T HE NOT AT I ON: ( S UM M ARY ORDE R) . A PA RTY CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D E R M U S T S E R V E A C O P Y O F T H A T S U M M A R Y O R D E R T O G E T H E R W IT H T H E P A P E R IN W H I C H TH E S U M M A R Y O R D ER I S C I TED O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL U N L E S S T H E S U M M A R Y O R D E R IS A V A IL A B L E IN A N E L E C T R O N IC D A T A B A S E W H IC H IS PU BL I CL Y ACC E S S I BL E W I T HO UT P AYM E NT OF F E E ( S UCH AS T HE DAT ABAS E AVAI L ABL E AT H TTP: // W W W . C A 2. U SCO U R TS. GO V / ) . I F NO CO PY I S SERV ED BY R EASO N O F TH E AV A I LAB I LI TY OF T HE ORDE R ON S UCH A DAT ABAS E , T HE C I TATI O N M US T I NCL UDE RE FE RE NCE T O THAT DAT ABAS E AND T HE DOCKET NUM BE R OF T HE CA S E I N W HI CH THE ORDE R W AS E NT E RE D. A ta st at ed t erm of t he U ni t ed S t at es C our t of A ppeal s forthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at the D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed S t at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on the 21 dayof D ece m ber , tw o thous and ni ne. st PRES ENT: RALP H K. W I NTE R,

R E E N A R A G G I, DE BR A ANN L I VI NGS T ON,

C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- S AE E DA A. M AHMUD, P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant ,
v. N o. 09- 1887- cv W A L T E R K A U F M A N N , I n d i v i d u a l l y, J o i n t l y, a n d S e v e r a l l y, J E F F A U E R B A C H , I n d i v i d u a l l y, J oi nt l y , a nd Se ve r a l l y , J A N E B RO O K S, I n d i v i d u a l l y , J o i n t l y , a n d S e v e r a l l y , GOP AL S H A H , I n d i v i d u a l l y, J o i n t l y, a n d S e v e r a l l y, D A V I D B R O D Y , I ndi vi dual l y , J oi nt l y , and S e v e r a l l y, D ef endant s -Appel l ees .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---2

A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L A N T : C A R L E
. PE R SO N , N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k. A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L E E S: S. A L L A N A D E L M A N (T im o thyB
. A del m an, on the br i ef

) , Ad e l ma n , S h e f

f & Smi th , LL C, A nnapol i s , M ary l and. A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fo r th e S o u thern D istri ct of N ew Y o rk (W illia m C . C o n n e r, Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm entent er ed on M ar ch 31, 2009, i s AF F I RMED
. Saeeda M ahmud, a car di ol ogi s t , appea l s fr om a gr ant of s um m aryj udgm enti n favor
o f d ef en d an ts, fiv e ind ividu al do ctors a ff il iat ed w ith h er f

o rm er e m p loy er, B o n S ec o u rs C om m uni t yHos p i t a l ( “ BSCH”) , o n h e rc l a i m t h a tth e yv i o l a t e d th e Sh e r ma n Act , s e e 15 U
. S. C
. § 1 e t s e q . , a n d t o r t i o u s l y i n t e r f e r e d wi th h e r p r o s p e c t i v e e c o n o mi c a d v a n t a g e , s ee M ahmud v. K aufm an n , 6 07 F. Supp. 2d 541 ( S. D
. N
. Y
. 2009)
. W e r evi ew an aw ar d of
s um m aryj udgm entde novo, “exa m i ni ng the fa ct s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the nonm ovi ng partyand r es ol vi ng al l fac tual ambi gu it ies in tha tparty ’ s favor
. ” Pyke v. C uom o, 567 F. 3d 74, 76 ( 2d C i r . 2009)
. Sum m aryj udgm entis pr operonl yi f “ther e i s no genui ne is s u e a s to a n ym a te ri a l f a c t a n d
. . . th e m o v a n t is e n title d to ju d g m e n t as a m a tte r o f la w .” F ed. R
. C i v. P
. 56 (c)
. W e assum e fam i l i ari ty w i th the fa ct s and record of pri or proceedings, wh i c h we r e f

e r e n c e o n l ya s n e c e s s a ryt o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m. 1. Sher m an A ct M ahmud has notadduce d evi dence s uffi ci entt o cr eat e a tr i abl e i s s ue of f acton herI n oppos i ng s um m aryj udgm ent , M ahmud advanced de fi n it ion s of the r el evant 1 geogr aphi c and s ervi ce mar ket s , s ee H eerw agen v. C l earC hannel C om m c’ ns , I nc. , 435 F. 3d 219, 227- 28 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( expl ai ni ng m arketdefi ni t i on underSher m an A ct ) , overrul ed on othergr ounds as s t at ed i n T eamst er s L ocal 4 45 Fr ei ghtD i v. Pens i on Fund v. B om bar di er In c ., 5 4 6 F .3 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ), th a t d if f e re d su b sta n tiallyf

ro m th o se a rticu late d in hercompl ai nt , compar e A m . C om pl
. ¶¶ 55- 56, w i th A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at13, 15. T he di s tr i ct courtfocus ed on w hetherM ahmud had adduced e vi den ce s uppor t i ng the exi s t ence of the m arket s d escr i bed i n hercompl ai ntand found s he had f ai l ed t o do s o. See M ahmud v. K aufmann, 607 F. Supp. 2d at555. M ahmud sugges t s thi s w as err or . B eca us e, l i ke the dis tri ctcou rt , w e con cl ud e that M ahm ud has fai l ed t o addu ce s uff i ci ent evi den ce of

anti trust i nj uryi n anym arket , w e nee d notr eac h thi s ques t i on. 3 Sher m an A ctcl ai m . A s the di s tr i ctcourtobs erved i n a ch ar act er i s t i cal l ythought ful and det ai l e d o p i n i o n , M a h mud ’ s c o mpl a i n t d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e whe th e r s h e i n v o k e s s e c t i on 1 or 2 of the A ct , s ee 15 U
. S. C
. §§ 1- 2, buti n ei thercas e s he mustpr ove an a nt i trus ti nj ury , s ee G eor ge H aug C o. v. R ol l s R oy ce M ot orC ar s I nc. , 148 F. 3d 136, 139 ( 2d C i r . 1998) , i
. e. , “( 1)
an injury -i n -fa ct; (2) tha t h as b ee n ca u sed b y the v iolati o n ; an d (3) that is the typ e o f in jury
con t em plat ed b yt he st atute, ” B l ue T ree H otel s I nv . (C anad a), L td
. v. S t arw oo d H otel s & R eso rt s W o rl d w ide, Inc
. , 3 6 9 F
. 3 d 2 1 2 , 2 2 0 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 4 ). M a h m u d h a s a ss e rte d th re e in ju rie s: (1 ) h e r o w n lo st in c o m e ; (2 ) in ter f e re n c e w ith p a tien ts’ c h o ice o f

p h y sic ian s, a n d (3 ) a red u c tio n in th e q u a lity o f m e d ica l ca re a v a ilab le in th e r e l e v a n tm a r k e t . T h e f i r s ti s a n i n

j u ry t o a n i n d i v i d u a l c o m p e t i t o r , n o t a n a n t i tru s ti n j u r y. 1 See D ani el v
. A m . B d. of Em er gencyM ed. , 428 F. 3d 408, 438 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ; C api t al Im ag ing A sso cs., P
. C
. v . M o h aw k V all ey M e d
. A sso cs., Inc
. , 9 9 6 F
. 2 d 5 3 7 , 5 4 3 (2d C ir
. 19 93 ). M ahm ud has fail ed to a dd uce suffici ent ev i den ce as t o the ot her tw o all eged i njur i es.In h e r rep ly b rie f , M a h m u d a p p e a rs to a b a n d o n th is cla im
. S e e A p p e llan t’s R e p ly 2 B r. at 6 . In a n ye v e n t, he r e v id e n c e o n th is iss u e is in su f f icie n t, as e x p lain e d in tex t. 4 S p e c i f i c a l l y , M a h mu d ’ s e v i d e n c e o f d i mi n i s h e d p a t i e n tc h o i c e i n c l u d e s ( 1 ) h e ro wn 2 decl ar at i ons , s ee, e. g. , M ahmud D ecl
. O pp’ n Sum m . J
. ( “M ahmud D ecl
. ”) ¶¶ 28, 62; and ( 2) th e d e c lar a tio n s o f 3 2 p a tien ts. N e ith e r is s u f f icie n t to c re a te a triab le is su e o f f a c t. M ahmud’s concl us orydecl ar at i on s are pat ent l yi nadequa t e. See Patt er s on v. C ountyof O n e id a , 3 7 5 F .3 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 9 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). T h e p a tien ts’ d e c lar a tio n s a re lik e w ise in a d e q u a te b e c a u se th e yd o n o t es tab lish th a t th e p a tien ts c a n n o t se c u re tre a tm e n t f ro m M a h m u d , o n ly thattheycannotdo s o at B SC H
. M ahmud cur r ent l yhas admi t t i ng pr i vi l eges atthr ee other
ar ea hos pi t al s . See M ahmud D ecl
. ¶ 30. R e g a rd in g q u a lity o f c a re , M a h m u d a g a in re lie s o n h e r o w n d e c la ra tio n s , s e e , e . g ., M ahmud D ecl
. ¶ 80, as w el l as s um m ar i es of the t en pat i ent chart s on w hi ch, i n the i nci dent t hat l e d u l t i ma t e l y t o h e r d e p a r tu r e f r o m BS CH , s h e a l l e g e d mi s c o n d u c tbyot her pr act i t i oner s . E ven t o the ext entthe cha r t s s ubs t ant i at e M ahmud’s claim tha tpat i ent s at B S C H hav e recei ved i nferi or car e, theyadd res s ci rcum st ances before her dep arture, and so
c a n n o td e m o n s tr a t e th a td e f e n d a n t s ’ s u b s e q u e n ta c t i o n s h a v e e f f e c t e d a n a n t i tru s ti n

j u r y. In su m , w h ile M a h m u d m a yh a v e a d d u c e d f a c ts c a p a b le o f

d e m o n stra tin g in

ju rie s to her s el f, s he has notcr eat ed a tr i abl e i s s ue of f actas t o “the typ e of i nj urycont empl at ed by the [S herm an A ct ]. ” B lu e T ree H otel s I nv estm ent ( C anad a), L t d. v. S t arw oo d H otel s & R es or t s W or l dw i de, I nc. , 369 F. 3d at 220; s ee a l s o B al akl aw v. L ovel l , 14 F. 3d 793, 802 ( 2dL ik e th e d istric t co u rt, w e c o n sid e r M a h m u d ’s to rtio u s in ter f e re n c e c laim w ith 3 r es pectt o thes e r el at i ons hi ps notw i ths t andi ng h er f ai l ur e t o i dent i fythem i n heramended co m p lai n t. S ee M ah m u d v . K au fm an n , 6 0 7 F
. S u p p . 2 d at 55 9 -60
. W e n o te th at M ah m u d ’s a r g u me n to n th i s i s s u e o c c u p i e s o n l ya b o u to n e p a g e o f h e rma i n b r i e f
. Ne v e r t h e l e s s , we as s um e thats he has pr es erved hercl ai m as t o the hos pi t al s and cr edent ial ing bodi es . H er c laim w ith re sp e c t to h e r fo rm e r pa tien ts, w h ich re c e iv e s o n ly a p a ss in g re f e re n c e in h e r re p ly b ri ef , is w aive d
. S ee N o rt o n v . S am ’s C lub , 1 4 5 F
. 3 d 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 (2d C ir
. 1 9 9 8 ). 5 C i r . 1994) ( “B eca us e D r . B al akl aw ’ s fac tual al l egat i ons . . . es t abl i s h onl ythat he has been harm ed as an i nd i vidual com peti t or, w e con cl ud e t hat D r. B al aklaw has suffered n o an t i trust in ju ry. . . . ” ). T h u s, w e a f f irm th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t f

o r d e f e n d a n ts on thi s i s s ue. 2. T or t i ous I nt er fer ence W e l i k e wi s e a f

f i r m th e a war d o f s u mma ry j u d g me n t i n f a v o r o f d e f

e n dant s on M a h mu d ’ s c l a i m o f t o r t i o u s i n t e r f e r e n c e wi th h e r p r o s p e c t i v e b u s i n e s s r e l a t i o n s wi th BS CH , O r ange Regi onal M edi cal C ent er( “O R M C ”) , and tw o s t at e cr edent i al i ng bodi es . Such a 3 cl ai m r equi r es pr oof that “( 1) the pl ai nt i ff ha d bus i nes s r el at i ons w i th a thi r d party ; ( 2) t he defe ndan t inter fer ed w i th thos e bus i nes s r el at i ons ; ( 3) the def endantact ed fora w r ongful purpos e or us ed di s hones t , unfai r , or i m pr oper m eans ; and ( 4) the defe ndant ’ s act s inj ur ed the r el at i ons hi p. ” C at s ki l l D ev. , L
. L
. C
. v. Par k Pl ace E nt m ’ tC orp. , 547 F. 3d 115, 132 ( 2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). M a h m u d h a s f

a iled to a d d u c e su f

f icie n t e v id e n c e to c re a te a q u e stio n o f f a c t as to
w hetherthe thi rd el em ent i s sat i sfi ed as t o the tw o ho spi t al s. A s a “gen eral rul e, ” un l ess a d e f e n d a n t’ s c o n d u c t “a m o u n t[ s] to a c rim e o r a n in d e p e n d e n t to rt,” n o t alle g e d h e re , itC a rv e l a lso su g g e sts th a t “ e x tre m e a n d u n f a ir” e c o n o m ic p re ss u re m ig h t co n stitu te 4 “w r ongful m eans ” s at i s fy i ng the thi r d el ement of t or t i ous i nt er fer ence , 3 N
. Y
. 2d at190- 92, 7 8 5 N
. Y
. S
. at 36 2 -64 , b u t suc h p ressu re su ff ices o n lyw h ere it s “so le pu rpo se” is t o injure the pl ai nt i ff, C at s ki l l D ev. , L
. L
. C
. v. Par k Pl ace E nt m ’ tC orp. , 547 F. 3d at137 ( i nt ernal q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). M ahmud di r ect s the c our tt o t es t i m onyi ndi cat i ng thatB SC H ’ s m edi cal exec ut i ve 5 comm i t t ee s om et i m es d iscus s ed conf i dent i al i s s ues i n “exe cut i ve s es s i on, ” as t o w hi ch a r ecor d w as no t c r e a t e d
. Se e App e l l a n t ’ s Br
. a t 3 2 ; W a l t e r Kau f ma n n Dep
. Tr
. a t 1 7
. She offe r s no evi dence thatthe comm i t t ee devi at ed fr om thi s pr act i ce i n hercas e, m uch l es s t hat i tdi d s o forthe purpos e of i nj ur i ng her
. T he r ecor d r eflect s , m or eover , thats om e of the comm i t t ee’ s di s cus s i ons of M ahmud di d occuri n exec ut i ve s es s i on, s ee Let t erfr om T hom as B run ell e t o M ark T uckfe l t( A pr . 20, 2004) , and thatotherm eet i ngs w er e r ecor ded at M ahmud’s ow n r eques t , s ee J eff r eyA uerbach D ep. T r . at61.

6 s at i s fi es thi s el ementonl yi f i ti s engage d i n “forthe s ol e purpose o f inf li cti ng i nt ent i onal harm ” on the pl ai nt i ff. C arvel C orp. v. N oonan, 3 N
. Y
. 3d 182, 190, 785 N
. Y
. S. at359, 362 (2 0 0 4 ) (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). M a h m u d o f f e rs n o e v id e n c e to su p p o rt h e r c laim 4 thatthe di s ci pl i naryact i on i ns t i tut ed aga i ns therw as a “s ham, ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at 23, ot her than the as s ert i on, uns uppor t ed bythe re co rd, thatdefe ndant s devi at ed fr om thei rus ual prac ti ce b y ca us i ng r el at ed meet i ngs t o be r ecor ded, s ee M ahmud D ecl
. ¶ 11, and a l ett er 5 fr om another phy s i ci an at t es t i ng that M ahmud’s car e of the t en pat i ent s on w hos e cha r t s s he

r ecor ded compl ai nt s w as “w i thout r epr oach, ” L ett erfr om J anetSt r ai n t o J eff r eyA uerbach (D ec . 2 , 2 0 0 1 ). P arti cu larl yin li g h t of an ind ep en d en t ev alua tor’s w arn ing that M ah m u d ’s pr act i ce a s t o s om e of the s ame t en pat i ent s devi at ed fr om the stan d ard of car e, s ee Let t er f ro m R o n a ld J
. T a telb a u m to Je f f re yA u e rb a c h (O c t. 15 , 2 0 0 1 ), M a h m u d ’s e v id e n c e is i ns uffi ci entt o r ai s e a que s t i on of fa ctas t o w hetherthe pr ocee di ng w as inst i tut ed fort he “s ol e purpos e” of

i nj ur i n g h er. C arve l C orp. v. N oonan, 3 N
. Y
. 3d at190. N ordoes t he7

rec o rd e stab li sh that h er d isci p li n aryrec o rd s w e re tr an sm itted to O R M C in o rde r t o injure h e r . Ra th e r , i t i n d i c a t e s th a tBS CH p e r s o n n e l r e s i s t e d p r o v i d i n g th e r e c o r d s , b u tth a tORM C, obey i ng i t s ow n by l aw s , i ns i s t ed. See L ett er fr om M ark T uckfe l tt o Saeeda M ahmud (D ec. 2 0 , 2 0 0 2 ). F in a lly , as su m in g f

o r th e p u rp o s e s o f th is a p p e a l th a t M a h m u d ’s r e latio n sh ip s w ith tw o N ew Y ork cr eden t i al i ng bo dies can b e charact eri zed as “b usi ness r el at i on s, ” see Pu rgess
v. Sharr ock, N o. 91 C i v. 621, 1993 W L 328919, at *8 ( S. D
. N
. Y
. A ug. 2 0 , 1 9 9 3 ) (not i ng
a b se n c e o f N e w Y o rk a u th o ritysu p p o rtin g c laim th a t “a p h y sic ian ’s r e latio n sh ip w ith a sta te l i cens i ng boar d i s noteconomi c i n natur e”) , M ahmud has fai l ed t o adduce evi dence thather

r el at i ons hi ps w i th thos e ent i t i es w er e i nj ur ed. A l though both opened i nves t i gat i ons i nt o her conduct , nei therpr oduced a n adver s e fi ndi ng. See M ahmud D ecl
. ¶¶ 37, 39. W e have cons i dere d M ah m ud’ s r emai ni ng cont ent i ons on appea l , and w e conc l ude th a tth e ya r e wi th o u tme r i t . Ac c o r d i n g l y , th e j u d g me n t o f th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED
. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt

B y :

_______________________