20

- 1016

- c v Apotex Corp. v. Hospira Healthcare India Private Ltd.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND 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 “ SUMMARY ORDER ” ). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT O N ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1 held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the 2 City of New York, on the 2 3 r d d ay of O c t o b e r , two thousand twenty

. 3
4 PRESENT: R OSEMARY S. POOLER

, 5
RAY MOND J. LOHIER, JR., 6
WILLIAM J. NARDINI

, 7 Circuit Judges

. 8

------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
APOTEX CORP.

, a Delaware c orporation

, 10
11 Plaintiff

- Counter

- Defendant

- Appellant

, 12 13

v. No. 20

- 1 016

- c v 14 15 HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE 16

L IMITED

, an Indian corporation, HOSPIRA, 17 INC., a Delaware corporation, 18 19 Defendant s

- Counter

- Claimants

- Appel lees

. * 20

------------------------------------------------------------------ 21

* The Clerk of Court is directed to amend the caption as set forth above.2 FOR PLAINTIFF

- COUNTER

- J AMES W. M ATTHEWS , Foley & 1
DEFENDANT

- APPELLANT: Lardner LLP, Boston, MA 2 ( David B. Goroff, Foley & 3 Lardner LLP, Chicago, IL

, on 4 the brief )

. 5
6
FOR DEFENDANTS

- COUNTER

- C HARLES L. M C C LOUD ( Heidi 7
CLAIMANTS

- APPELLEES: K. Hubbard, Ana C. Reyes, 8 Paul G. Ream, on the brief ), 9 Williams & Connolly LLP, 10 Washington

, DC

. 11

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the 12

Southern District of New York ( Jesse M. Furman

, J udge ). 13

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 14

AND DECREED that the judgment of the D istrict C ourt is AFFIRMED

. 15

Apotex Corp. appeal s from orders of the United States District Court for 16

the Southern District of New York (Furman, J. ) dated July 12, 2019 and August 17

13, 2019, which became final through an order dated February 19, 2020, 1 and 18

1 T he District Court’s February 19, 2020 order dismissing all remaining claims without prejudice and directing the c lerk of c ourt to close the case is a final decision that “end[ed] the litigation on the merits and [left] nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” H all v. Hall , 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1123

– 24 (2018); see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing appellate jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts”). W e note , however, that no judgment of the D istrict C ourt was ever set forth in a separate document. Of course, i n the absence of a separate document, judgment is3 which dismiss ed Apotex’s fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unf air 1

competition, tortious interference , implied covenant, and unjust enrichment 2

claims under New York law and limited the damages recoverable for Apotex’s 3

claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 4

§§ 501.201

– 21 3. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts 5

and prior record of proceedings

, to which we refer only as necessary to explain 6

our decision to affirm. 7

For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its thorough 8

orders of July 12 a nd August 13, 2019

, we conclude that Apotex’s First Amended 9

Complaint fail ed to state any claims under New York law independent of its 10

breach of contract claim and that Apotex cannot recover lost profit damages for 11

its claim under Florida law

. 12

We have considered Apotex’s remaining arguments and conclude that 13

deemed entered 150 days after the order from which the appeal lies is entered

. Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(c)(2)(B) . But we will repeat our strong sugge stion that “where the District
Court makes a decision intended to be ‘final

, ’ the better procedure is to set forth the decision in a separate document called a judgment

. ” Elfenbein v. Gulf & W. Indus.,
Inc. , 590 F.2d 445, 449 (2d Cir. 1978)

, abrogated on other grounds by Espinoza ex rel. JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. Dimon , 797 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2015) ; see Dancause v. Mount
Morris Cent. Sch. Dist. , 590 F. App’x 27, 28 & n.1 (2d Cir. 2014) (summary order).4 they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the D istrict 1

C ourt is AFFIRMED . A ny pending motions are denied as moot

. 2

FOR THE COURT: 3
Catherine O ’ Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court 4