Opinion ID: 3164789
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: N.S., 762 F.2d 193, 198–99 (2nd Cir. 1985).

Text: Persuaded by the logic behind Devose’s rule and the pervasive application of the rule both within the district courts of our circuit and our sister circuits, we now formally adopt the rule of Devose. We hold that there must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint. This requires a sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself. The relationship between the preliminary injunction and the underlying complaint is sufficiently strong where the preliminary injunction would grant “relief of the same character as that which may be granted finally.” De Beers Consol. Mines, 325 U.S. at 220. Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief requested. B Applying this rule here, PRO’s motion for injunctive relief does not have a relationship or nexus to the underlying complaint. Therefore the district court properly refused to grant the relief requested. PRO’s motion for injunctive relief is based on potential misconduct entirely unrelated to its unfair trade practices claims. PRO’s complaint alleges multiple claims against QMC for violations of due process, unfair and illegal trade practices, and other state law claims. The complaint does not contain a claim for improper review and use of confidential patient information in violation of HIPAA and the Hawaii Constitution. PRO’s complaint relates only to the retention of hospital privileges and PAC. RADIATION ONCOLOGY V. QUEEN’S MED. CTR. 13 collection of damages from unfair competition and related theories. Besides merely asserting that the claims are related or incorporated into its complaint, PRO fails to explain how the privacy claims underlying the motion for injunctive relief relate to the unfair trade practices claims in its complaint. See Devose, 42 F.3d at 471. Instead, PRO relies on generalized notice pleading requirements in an attempt to justify how evidence of QMC’s privacy violations is relevant to claims of unfair trade practices. We are not persuaded. QMC’s particular use of private patient medical information may have some relevance to those claims. That use may have contemporaneously violated HIPAA and the Hawaii Constitution and might arguably support a new claim against QMC by PRO or the patients whose privacy may have been compromised.3 See id. However, that does not turn PRO’s claims of unfair trade practices into separate and distinct claims that QMC violated HIPAA and the Hawaii Constitution.4 Despite PRO’s arguments to the contrary, PRO cannot point to any violation of privacy claims or any conduct implicating a violation of patient privacy in its complaint because there are none. Finally, PRO itself admitted in the district court that its motion for injunctive relief has nothing to do with the 3 We assume, but do not decide, that PRO has standing to assert the privacy rights of its patients. Nor do we address whether HIPAA contains a private right of action. 4 We are equally unpersuaded by PRO’s attempts at oral argument to link by incorporation the claims of violation of patient privacy with their claims of violation of QMC’s bylaws. 14 PAC. RADIATION ONCOLOGY V. QUEEN’S MED. CTR. underlying claim. Reply Mem. in Supp. of Pls.’ Mot. for TRO or in the Alternative for Prelim. Inj. at 1, Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 47 F. Supp. 3d 1069 (2014) (No. 12-00064), ECF No. 260 (“The merit or lack of merit of the claims and defenses of either party is not before the Court.”). PRO is not asking for relief of the same nature it may ultimately be granted in its lawsuit against QMC. See De Beers Consol. Mines, 325 U.S. at 220. Instead, PRO is seeking to enjoin QMC’s use of private patient information — a remedy that will not be provided if PRO succeeds in its underlying unfair trade practices suit. Though the district court did not explicitly consider Devose in denying PRO’s motion for injunctive relief, the court properly denied the motion because it was unrelated to the underlying complaint. The district court stated that PRO could not prove the likelihood of success requirement of the preliminary injunction analysis because the privacy violations alleged in the motion were not contained within the actual complaint. Additionally, the district court correctly noted that the issue presented in the motion “does not fit within the TRO analysis” and properly denied injunctive relief. Though the district court did not refer to Devose explicitly, it applied the same analysis and came to the same legal conclusion. There was no abuse of discretion in denying PRO’s motion. PRO might have sought leave to amend its complaint to include a claim of violation of its patients’ privacy rights under HIPAA and the Hawaii Constitution. Or PRO and its patients might have brought a separate suit against QMC. PRO did neither. What we have before us is merely a PAC. RADIATION ONCOLOGY V. QUEEN’S MED. CTR. 15 discovery dispute in disguise as an interlocutory appeal.5 PRO cannot respond to QMC’s discovery request by seeking injunctive relief unrelated to the claims set forth in the underlying suit.