APOTEX CORP v. HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Apotex Corp. appeals from orders of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Furman, J.) dated July 12, 2019 and August 13, 2019, which became final through an order dated February 19, 2020,¹ and which dismissed Apotex's fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unfair competition, tortious interference, implied covenant, and unjust enrichment claims under New York law and limited the damages recoverable for Apotex's claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201–213. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and prior record of proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

For substantially the reasons stated by the District Court in its thorough orders of July 12 and August 13, 2019, we conclude that Apotex's First Amended Complaint failed to state any claims under New York law independent of its breach of contract claim and that Apotex cannot recover lost profit damages for its claim under Florida law.

We have considered Apotex's remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The District Court's February 19, 2020 order dismissing all remaining claims without prejudice and directing the clerk of court 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.” Hall v. Hall, ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S. Ct. 1118, 1123–24, 200 L.Ed.2d 399 (2018); see 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing appellate jurisdiction over “appeals from all final decisions of the district courts”). We note, however, that no judgment of the District Court was ever set forth in a separate document. Of course, in the absence of a separate document, judgment is 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 suggestion 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).