09-3770 -cv

Verz an i v. C ostc o W

holesaleCorp orati on

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 L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y O R D E R D O N O T H A V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I O N T O A S UM M ARY ORDE R F I L E D ON OR AF T E R J ANUARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S P E RM I T T E D AND I S GOVE RNE D BY FED ERA L R U LE O F A PPELLA TE P R O C EDU R E 32. 1 A N D TH I S C O U R T’ S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1. 1. W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A P A R T Y M U ST C I TE E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E NDI X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE N OT A T I ON “ S U M M A R Y OR D E R ” ) . A P A R T Y C I T I N G T O A S U M M A R Y OR D E R M U S T S E R V E A C OP Y OF I T ON A N Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL. A t a 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 J ul y , tw o t hous and t en. st P R E S E N T : R E E N A R A G G I,

GE RA RD E . L YNC H, DE NNY C HI N, C i r cui tJudges
.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- M A R C E . V E R Z A N I, in d iv id u a llya n d o n b e h a lf o f a ll o thers sim il arlysitu ated , an d R O B E R T J. V E R Z A N I, i n d i v i d u a l l ya s P r i v a t e At t o r n e yGe n e r a l u n d e rth e L a ws of the St at e of W as hi ngt on,

P la in tif fs-Ap p e lla n ts , v. N o. 09- 3770- cv CO S T CO WHOL E S AL E CO RP OR AT I ON,

D ef endant

-Appel l ee .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- A PPE A R I N G FO R A PPE L L A N T S: W I L L I A M R . W E I N ST E I N ( B ehr am V . Par ekh, K i r tla n d & P a c k a rd , E l S e g u n d o , C a lif o rn ia , on the br i ef ) , 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 : J A M E S D
. A R D E N ( A l an C har l es R aul , E amon P . J o y c e , on the brief

) , Si dl eyA us t i n L L P, N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k.A lth o u g h se v e ra n c e re leg a ted f a th e r an d so n to se p a ra te a c tio n s in th e d istric t co u rt, 1 w e a d d re ss in th is s u m m a ryo rd e r th e a rg u m e n ts e a c h ra ise s o n a p p e a l. 2 A ppeal fr om a j udgm ent of the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ct C our t forthe Southern D i s tr i ct
o f N e w Y o rk (C o lle e n M c M a h o n , 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 that the J u ly3 1 , 2 0 0 9 jud g m en t and A u g u st 6, 2 0 0 9 o rde r of the d istri ct co u rtare AF F I RMED . P lain tiff M a rc V e rz a n i se e k s in th is p u tativ e c las s a c tio n to h o ld C o stc o W h o les a le C orpor at i on ( “C os t co”) l i abl e for br eac h of contr actand al l eged vi ol at i ons of W as hi ngt on
s t at e’ s cons um erpr ot ect i on l aw , s ee W as h. R ev. C ode § 19. 86. 090, bas ed on i t s l abel i ng of a p rod u ct, “Shr i m p T r ayw i th C ockt ai l Sauce, ” i n a mannerthatal l egedl yover s t at es t he quant i ty o f sh r i m p i tcont ai ns . M ar c V er zani appea l s fr om the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deni al of a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on barr i ng s al es of the Shr i m p T r ayas curr ent l yl abel ed. See V er zani v. C o stco W h o lesale C o rp . , 6 4 1 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 9 1 , 3 0 2 (S
. D . N . Y . 2 0 0 9 ). P lai n ti ff R o b ert V e rz a n i, M a rc V e rz a n i’s f a th e r, w h o w a s s e v e re d f ro m h is so n ’s law su it b yth e d istric t co u rt, app e a l s f r o m t h e s u b s e q u e n td i s mi s s a l o f h i s c l a i m f

o rl a c k o f

s u b j e c tma t t e rj u r i s di ct i on p u r s u a n tt o F e d
. R. Ci v . P . 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 )
. S e e i d
. a t3 0 4
. I n a n a l y z i n g t h e s e c h a l l e n g e s , we 1
as s um e fa m i l i ar i tyw i th the fa ct s and pr ocedur al hi s t ory , w hi ch w e ref ere n ce onl yas
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.N ei therpartyhas s ugges t ed tha t, an d ther efor e w e have no occa s i on t o cons i der 2 w hether , the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n eB ayI nc. v. M er cExchange, L L C , 547 U
. S. 388 (2 0 0 6 ), h a s an y a p p lica tio n h e re . M a rc V e rz a n i’s re q u e st f o r a p re lim in a ryin

ju n c tio n f

a ils u n d e r t h is C o u rt ’s p re c e d e n t b o th b e f o re a n d a f

te r e B a y . 3 1. M ar c V er zani W e r evi ew the deni al of a pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on for abus e of di s cr et i on. See SE C v. D o ro z h k o , 5 7 4 F .3 d 4 2 , 4 5 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). A p re lim in a ryin ju n c tio n m a yb e g ra n te d o n ly upon a s how i ng of ( 1) l i kel yi r r epar abl e harm , and ( 2) ei ther ( a) a l i kel i hood of s ucce s s on the mer i t s or( b) s uffi ci ent l y s er i ous ques t i ons goi ng t o the mer i t s t o m ake them a fai rgr ound forl i t i gat i on, w i th the bal ance of hard sh ips ti ppi ng deci dedl yi n the movant ’ s favor
. See D oni ngerv. N i ehoff

, 527 F. 3d 41, 47 ( 2d C i r . 2008)
. A s how i ng of i rr epar abl e harm i s the “s i ngl e mosti m port antpr er equi s i t e” f ori s s uance of a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. Fai vel ey T ran sp . M alm o A B v . W ab tec C o rp., 5 5 9 F . 3 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 8 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ). 2 W e id e n tifyn o ab u se o f d iscreti o n in the d istri ct co u rt ’s de n ial o f a p reli m inary i nj unct i on beca us e M ar c V er zani has fai led even t o al l ege i rr epar abl e i nj ury . I ndeed, on
a p p e a l, M a rc V e rz a n i co n c e d e s th a t th e a ss e rte d h a rm , tho u g h a lleg e d ly“ c o n tin u in g ,” is

“ mo n e t a ry ” i n n a tu r e . P l s . ’ Re p l yBr . a t6
- 7 . “ Wh e r e th e r e i s a n a d e q u a t e r e me d ya tl a w, s uch as an aw ar d of m oneydamages , i nj unct i ons ar e unava i l abl e exc epti n ext rao rdin ary ci r cumst ance s . ” M oor e v. C ons ol
. E di s on C o. of N . Y . , I nc. , 409 F. 3d 506, 5 1 0 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). In a n e f

f o rt to a v o id th is c o n c lu sio n , M a rc V e rz a n i a ss e rts tha t h e p u rsu e s h is c laim4

as a “pr i vat e att orneygener al ” underW as hi ngt on l aw . A s s uch, he cont ends, h e n ee d not demonstr at e i r r epar abl e harm . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. D i apul s e C orp. of A m . , 457 F. 2d 25, 28 ( 2d C i r . 197 2 ) (h o ldi ng i r r epar abl e i nj urynotr equi r ed w her e governm entagenc ys ought p re lim in a r y i n

ju n c tio n b a rrin g sa le o f m isb ra n d e d m e d ica l d e v ice ). A s w e e x p lain e d in D i apul s e, h o w ev er, the “f unct i on of a c our ti n deci di ng w hethert o i s s ue an i nj unct i on author i zed bya s t atut e of the U ni t ed St at es t o enfor ce a nd i m pl ement C ongr es s i onal pol i cy i s a di ffe r ent one fr om thatof the courtw hen w ei ghi ng cl ai m s of tw o pr i vat e l i t i gant s . ” I d. at27; cf. M ons ant o C o. v. G eert s on Seed Farm s , - - - S
. C t. -- - - , 2010 W L 2471057, at*11 (Jun e 2 1 , 2 0 1 0 ) (r eq u ir ing sh o w ing o f irrep ara b le in ju ry fo r no n -go v ern m en t plainti ff ’s
r eques tfori nj unct i ve r el i ef f orvi ol at i ons of fe der al s t atut e)
. T hi s cas e fa l l s int o the l att er cat egory . O urconcl us i on r egar di ng i rr epar abl e i nj ury r ender s i t unnece s s ary for us t o r evi ew the d i stri ctcou rt ’s determ i nati on that M arc V erzani ’s cl ai m w as “l i kelyt o fail ” on the m eri t s. V er zani v. C os t co W hol es al e C orp. , 641 F. Supp. 2d at302; s ee Spi egel v. Schul m ann, 604 F . 3 d 7 2 , 8 0 n . 2 (2d C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ) (no ti n g that co u rto f a p p ea ls m ayaf firm o n an yg rou n d rec o rd
su p p o rt s). T o the ext entM ar c V er zani s eeks i nt er l ocut ory r evi ew of t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al
o f h is b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t cla im p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (b )(6 ), w e lac k ju risd ictio n to
e n ter tain su c h a c h a llen g e to a n o n -f in a l o rd e r. S e e In re W o rld T ra d e C tr. D is a s te r S ite L it ig., 5 2 1 F . 3 d 1 6 9 , 1 7 8 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ). R ev iew o f the d ism issal is n o t “ne ce ssaryto en su re5

m eani ngful r evi ew of” the deni al of a pr el i m i n ary i nj unct i on, i
. e. , the tw o i s s ues ar e not “i nextr i cabl yi nt ertw i ned. ” R ei n v. Soci al i s tPeopl e’ s L i by an A r ab J amahi r i y a , 1 6 2 F. 3d 748, 758 ( 2d C i r . 1998)
. N orw i l l w e addr es s M ar c V er zani ’ s r eques t for l eave t o fi l e a s econd amended compl ai ntaddi ng cl ai m s un d er N ew Y or k l aw beca us e the di s tr i ctcourthas not
ru led o n th a t re q u e st. 2. R obertV er zani B eca us e R obertV er zani has been s ever ed fr om the act i on i ni t i at ed by hi s s on, he may appea l the di s m i s s al of hi s cl ai m pur s uant t o Fed. R . C i v. P. 12( b) ( 1) even though no fi nal jud g m en t has issue d in the o ri g inal law su it
. S ee S p en ce r, W h it e & P ren ti s, In c. v. P fize r, In c ., 4 9 8 F .2 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 1 (2 d C ir. 1 9 7 4 ) (o b se rv in g th a t “ a p p e a l f ro m a ju d g m e n t o n a v a lid ly
s ever ed s i ngl e cl ai m m aybe t i m el yt aken a s of r i ghtnotw i ths t andi ng the pende ncy o f the
r emai ni ng cl ai m s orcount er cl ai m s”); 7 C har l es A l an W r i ghtetal
. , Feder al Pr act i ce a nd P ro c e d u re § 1 6 8 9 (3 d e d . 2 0 0 1 ) (“ O n c e a c laim h a s b e e n se v e re d
. . . it p ro c e e d s a s a d isc re te uni tw i th i t s ow n fi nal j udgm ent , fr om w hi ch an appeal m aybe t aken. ”)
. O n appea l fr om
s uch a di s m i s s al , w e r evi ew th e d ist ri ctcourt ’ s fac t fi ndi ng forcl earerr orand i t s l egal
co n clus ion s d e n o v o . S ee M ak aro v a v . U n it ed S tat es, 20 1 F . 3 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 3 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 ). W e e x p re ss n o v iew a s to R o b e rt V e rz a n i’s c o n ten tio n th a t h e w a s p ro p e rlyjo in e d in h is son ’s p u tat ive class acti o n p u rsua n t to 28 U . S
. C
. § 1 3 3 2 (d), be ca u se th e d istri ct co u rt ’s
s ever ance or derpur s uantt o Fed. R . C i v. P. 21 i s not an appeal abl e fi nal j udgm ent . See 28A l though G arberacknow l edges the pos s i bi l i ty of hear i ng an i nt er l ocut orychal l enge 3 to a s ev era n ce ruli n g p u rsua n t t o the c o ll ateral o rde r do ctri n e, see 4 7 7 F .2 d at 71 5 , R o b ert V er zani does nots ugges tthatthe doctr i ne appl i es her e. 6 U . S. C
. § 1291; cf. G arberv. R andel l , 477 F. 2d 711, 714 ( 2d C i r . 1973) ( no ti ng on appea l f ro m c o n so lid a tio n o rd e r u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 4 2 th a t b e c a u se se v e ra n c e is “ b o th di s cr et i onary and i nt er l ocut ory ” i t i s “not or di nar i l y appea l abl e”)
. Sever anc e h avi ng 3
o c c u rre d , h o w e v e r, w e a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t itlac k e d ju risd ictio n to a d ju d ica te the W ashi ng t on st at e l aw cl ai m s of R ob ertV erzani , a res i den t o f W a sh i ng t on , against W as hi ngt on- bas ed C os t co. See 28 U
. S. C
. § 1332. W e have cons i der ed pl ai nt i ffs ’ r emai ni ng ar gum ent s on appea l , and w e conc l ude that th 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 to 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