1 15-3785-cv(L) Abbott Labs. v. Adelphia Supply USA UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER Rulings by summary order do not have preceden tial effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted a nd is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court’s Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation “summa ry order”). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, at 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 3 rd day of November, two thousand sixteen. Present: ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Chief Judge , RALPH K. WINTER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges

.

________________________________________________ ABBOTT LABORATORIES, ABBOTT DIABETES CARE, INC., ABBOTT DIABETES CARE SALES CORPORATION, Plaintiffs-Appellees , v. No. 15-3785-cv(L) No. 15-3858-cv(CON) H&H WHOLESALE SERVICES, INC., HOWARD GOLDMAN, LORI GOLDMAN, MATRIX DISTRIBUTORS, INC., CHRISTOPHER BENEVENT, SETH GRUMET, Defendants-Appellants , ADELPHIA SUPPLY USA, YUDAH NEUMAN, a/k/a LENNY NEUMAN, REUVEN SOBEL, a/k/a CHAIM SOBEL, MOSES NEUMAN, SHMUEL LEZELL, SAVE RITE MEDICAL.COM LLC, MARC KAPLAN, PAPOUTSANIS USA, LLC, d/b/a VIP INTERNATIONAL-DROGARIS, GEORGE DROGARIS,2 OSD CAPITAL, INC., f/k/a FARNES ENTERPRISES CORPORATION, OVERSTOCKDRUGSTORE.COM LLC, d/b/a SIMPLEMED SUPPLY, RICK EVENSON, KEVIN PLUMB, BUDGET HEALTH CORPORATION, d/b/a BUDGET DRUGS PHARMACY, JOHN FANDETTI, ROBERT NEWMYER, MARI A FANDETTI, LORI BLUE, ANTHONY MEOLA, MARK D. HENKIN, DREAM CEREAL INC., d/b/a DIABETESSUPPLIES4LESS.COM, DOUGLAS HAUCK, BERKELY DRUGS INC., MAJID HAMEED, EUGENE HA, CAREWAY PHARMACY INC., ANATOLIY FAIN, HARRICO-GALLER DRUG CORPORATION, JOHN GALLAGHER, HABER JN INC., d/b/a THE MODERN CHEMIST, NAOMI HABER, JERRY HABER, NORSTRAN D PHARMACY, LLC, d/b/a VANDERVEER PHARMACY, SARATHCHANDRA ADUSUMALLI, HEMAGIRI GAYAM, LEV RX CORP, d/b/a KIRAS PHARMACY , KIRA LEVKOUSKAYA, ELIYAHUS PHARMACY, INC., ILIAS MLABASATI, GLOBAL CARE PHARMACY, INC., D.K.Y. ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a 8TH AVENUE PHARMACY, KIM PING JIM, TGIS PHARMACY, INC., d/b/a SUNRISE FAMILY PHARMACY, SAJID JAVED, BAY PHARMACY INC., IRENE PIKER, B & T PHARMACY, INC., ANATOLY GOROKHOVSKY, LARKE DRUGS, INC., d/b/a 110 PHARMACY & SURGICAL, PRASAD VENIGALLA, LA RUCHE PH ARMACY, INC., SUNIL B. PATEL, ESTATES PHARMA CY, INC., MOHAMMED NURUDDIN, JOHN DOE, 1-10, NOVEX AMERICA, DENNIS CANTOR, TRI-STATE MEDICAL SUPPLIES EQUIP. CORP., ERWIN GANZFRIED, MORDECHAI KRITZLER, VALUE WHOLESALE, INC., DIANE BROWN, MEDICAL DISCOUNT SERVICES, INC., BRIAN MESIKA, DARRYL SCHREIBER, XPRESS MEDICAL SUPPLIES CORP., d/b/a PAYLESS DISTRIBUTORS, MOHAMMED PATEL, ZUBEDA MOTI, MUHAMMAD ARIF, SAPS DRUG WHOLESALE, INC., VILAS ASMIN, RAJESH AMIN, NIMESH AMIN, IXTHUS MEDICAL SUPPLY, INC., KARL KUNSTMAN, COMPLY USA INC., IRANY NIR, OFEK MESSIKA, KIMBERLY PASZKIEWICZ, DRUGPLACE, INC., PAUL LEIGHT, KEVIN SINGER, HMF DISTRIBUTING INC ., WHOLESALE DIABETIC SUPPLIES INC., ROSS TRAGER, MATTHEW FRANK, PRIMED PHARMACEUTICALS LLC, VINCENT MONDENADO, MATTHEW ZEIGLER, NE MEDICAL SUPPLY USA, INC., DANIELLE WAYNE, NICK3 WAYNE, TAS MEDICAL SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., TZVI SKLARZ, PRODUCT PERFORMANCE COMPANY, INC., JERROLD HERMAN, STEPHEN HERMAN, MED-PLUS, INC., ROGER MEZHIBOVSKY, DELRAY MARKETING, LLC, STEVE MICHAELS, DIABETIC PHARMACY SOLUTIONS, LLC, KARL BUCHOLZ, GLOBE WANTED, MASSALAH TRADING U.S.A. LTD., SAAD HADDAD, a/k/a SAM, HAVEMEYER PHARMACY INC., a/k/a/ SOUTH SECOND PHARMACY, MICHAEL BASSANELL, Defendants

.

_____________________________________________ For Defendants-Appellants H&H Wholesale Service, Inc., Howard Goldman, and Lori Goldman: J OHN S HAEFFER (William Rudy, on the brief ), Fox Rothschild LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Jason Yert, Kerr Russell and Weber, PLC, Detroit, MI ( on the brief ). For Defendants-Appellants Matrix Distributors, Inc., Christopher Benevent, and Seth Grumet: M ARTIN I. S APERSTEIN , Goodman & Saperstein, Garden City, NY.

For Plaintiffs-Appellees: G EOFFREY P OTTER (Aron Fischer, Timothy A. Waters, on the brief ), Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY.

Appeal from the United States District C ourt for the Eastern District of New York (Amon, J. ). ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

and DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED

. Defendants-Appellants H&H Wholesale Serv ices, Inc., Howard Goldman, and Lori Goldman (“H&H”) and Defendants-Appellants Matr ix Distributors, Inc. , Christopher Benevent, and Seth Grumet (“Matrix”) appeal from a judgme nt of the United States District Court for the4 Eastern District of New York (Amon, J. ) granting the motion of Pl aintiffs-Appellees Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc., and A bbott Diabetes Sales Corporation (“Abbott”) for a preliminary injunction enjoini ng a majority of the defendants from importing, distributing, or otherwise using in commerce in the United Stat es plaintiffs-appellees’ “FreeStyle” brand bloodglucose test strips intended for international sale . For substantially the r easons that the district court granted the motion, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the pr ocedural history, and the issues on appeal.

“The district court has wide discretion in determining whether to grant a preliminary injunction,” and we review that deci sion “only for abuse of discretion.” Grand River Enter. Six Nations, Ltd. v. Pryor , 481 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 2 007) (per curiam) (quoting Moore v. Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. , 409 F.3d 506, 511 (2d Cir. 2005)). “Suc h abuse of discretion ‘usually consists of clearly erroneous findi ngs of fact or the a pplication of an incorr ect legal standard.’”

Id. (quoting Nicholson v. Scoppetta , 344 F.3d 154, 165 (2d Cir. 2003)). The district court may grant a preliminary injunction if the plaintiff has shown (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a likeliho od of “irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief”; (3) “that the balance of equities tips in [the plaintiff’s] favor”; and (4) “that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Am. Civil Libertie s Union v. Clapper , 785 F.3d 787, 825 (2d Cir. 2015). H&H argues that the district c ourt abused its discretion in finding that Abbott was likely

to succeed on the merits of its trademark infr ingement claims brought against H&H. Both H&H and Matrix argue that the district court abused its discretion in finding a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief. We fi nd no abuse of discretion in the district court’s thorough and well-reasoned order.5 We have considered all of the defendants-ap pellants’ arguments on this appeal and we find in them no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

FOR THE COURT: CATHERINE O’HAGAN WOLFE, CLERK