Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceu


OPINION, vacating and remanding for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. by RKW, DJ, PNL FILED.[1961166] [15-288]

Download PDF
Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page1 of 13 15-288-cv Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 August Term, 2015 4 (Argued: September 29, 2015 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Decided: February 3, 2017) Docket No. 15-288-CV - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Physicians Healthsource, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, Medica, Inc. Defendants-Appellees, John Does, 1-10, Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - B e f o r e: WINTER, JACOBS, and LEVAL, Circuit Judges. Appeal from a grant by the United States District Court for 26 the District of Connecticut (Stefan R. Underhill, Judge) of a 27 Rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissing a complaint asserting violations 28 of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by 29 the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. § 227. 30 principal issue is whether an unsolicited fax inviting doctors to 31 a free dinner meeting featuring a discussion of an ailment -- to 32 which an upcoming product, as yet unapproved by the FDA, was 1 The Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page2 of 13 1 aimed -- was an “unsolicited advertisement.” 2 remand. 3 separate opinion. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 We vacate and Judge Leval joins in the panel’s opinion and concurs by GLENN L. HARA (Aytan Y. Bellin, Bellin & Associates LLC, White Plains, NY, on the brief), Anderson & Wanda, White Plains, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant. THOMAS D. GOLDBERG (Bryan J. Orticelli, Day Pitney LLP, Stamford, CT, Matthew H. Geelan, Donahue, Durham & Noonan, P.C., Guilford, CT, on the brief),Day Pitney LLP, Stamford, CT, for Defendants-Appellees. WINTER, Circuit Judge: Physicians Healthsource appeals from Judge Underhill’s 17 dismissal of its class action complaint asserting violations of 18 the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the 19 Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (the TCPA). 20 complaint alleges that appellees (collectively “Boehringer”) sent 21 an unsolicited fax invitation for a free dinner meeting to 22 discuss ailments relating to appellees’ business. 23 appellant, this fax constituted an “unsolicited advertisement” 24 prohibited by the TCPA. 25 The According to Judge Underhill dismissed appellant’s complaint for failure 26 to state a claim -- holding that no facts were pled that 27 plausibly showed that the fax had a commercial purpose. 28 agree that a fax must have a commercial purpose to be an 29 “unsolicited advertisement,” we hold that the district court 30 improperly dismissed appellant’s complaint. 2 While we Where it is alleged Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page3 of 13 1 that a firm sent an unsolicited fax promoting a free event 2 discussing a subject related to the firm’s business, the 3 complaint is sufficient to state a claim. 4 We therefore vacate and remand. 5 6 BACKGROUND In reviewing a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of a 7 complaint, we accept all factual allegations as true, drawing all 8 reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. 9 Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). 10 See Chambers v. The complaint alleges that, on April 6, 2010, Boehringer, a 11 pharmaceutical company, sent an unsolicited fax to appellant, 12 inviting one of appellant’s doctors to a free “dinner meeting” 13 and discussion entitled, “It's time to Talk: 14 Sexual Dysfunction (FSD) and Diagnosing Hypoactive Sexual Desire 15 Disorder (HSDD).” 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 J. App'x at 24. Recognizing Female The “invitation” stated that Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. cordially invites you to join us for a dinner meeting entitled, It’s Time to Talk: Recognizing Female Sexual Dysfunction and Diagnosing Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder. Based on recent data from a large US study (PRESIDE), 43% of US women aged > 18 years have experienced a sexual problem in their lives and 9.5% of the same group of women have experienced decreased sexual desire with distress. This program has been developed to discuss Female Sexual Dysfunction (FSD), including Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) including pathophysiology models, epidemiology, and diagnosis. We hope you will join us for this informative and stimulating program. 3 Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page4 of 13 1 Id. 2 speaker at the dinner meeting would be David Portman, MD. 3 The fax provided registration details and revealed that the On March 30, 2014, appellant filed a class action lawsuit on 4 behalf of more than forty individuals against Boehringer, 5 alleging that the fax violated the TCPA as an “unsolicited 6 advertisement” without a proper opt-out notice. 7 According to the complaint, the fax was an “unsolicited 8 advertisement” because it “promote[d] the services and goods of 9 [Boehringer].” Id. Id. at 11. Appellant sought an award of statutory 10 damages in the minimum amount of $500 for each violation of the 11 TCPA, and to have such damages trebled. 12 injunctive relief to enjoin Boehringer from sending similar faxes 13 in the future. Appellant also requested 14 Boehringer moved to dismiss, arguing that appellant failed 15 to state a claim under the TCPA because the unsolicited fax was 16 not an advertisement. 17 the district court to take judicial notice of public records of 18 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) -- a request that was 19 unopposed and that the court granted. 20 at the time it faxed appellant, Boehringer had submitted for 21 approval by the FDA to market a drug named Flibanserin. 22 was intended to treat HSDD. 23 approved by the FDA, Boehringer was forbidden to promote it. 24 See 21 C.F.R. § 312.7(a)(prohibiting, inter alia, pharmaceutical 25 companies from “promoting” drugs not yet approved by the FDA). In its motion to dismiss, Boehringer asked These records showed that, The drug Because Flibanserin had yet to be 4 Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page5 of 13 1 The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to 2 state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Physicians 3 Healthsource, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 4 No. 3:14-CV-405 (SRU), 2015 WL 144728, at *6 (D. Conn. Jan. 12, 5 2015). 6 (FCC) regulations as “requir[ing] plaintiffs to show that [an 7 unsolicited] fax has a commercial pretext” for it to violate the 8 TCPA. 9 [f]ax indicates that the dinner was a pretext for pitching a The court interpreted Federal Communications Commission Id. at *3. The court determined that “[n]othing in the 10 Boehringer product or service.” 11 that, “[e]ven drawing the inference that Boehringer sponsored the 12 dinner in order to inform potential future prescribers of 13 Flibanserin about the existence and nature of HSDD, the 14 hypothetical future economic benefit that the Boehringer 15 defendants might receive someday does not transform the [f]ax 16 into an advertisement.” 17 Id. at *5. The court noted Id. DISCUSSION 18 As noted, we review de novo a district court's dismissal of 19 a complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). See Chambers, 282 F.3d at 20 152. 21 sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to 22 relief that is plausible on its face.” 23 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 24 stated, To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain 5 Bell Atl. Corp. v. As the Supreme Court has Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page6 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citations omitted) 16 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). 17 A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not akin to a “probability requirement,” but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Under the TCPA, it is unlawful for “any person within the 18 United States” to send a fax that is an “unsolicited 19 advertisement” -- unless, inter alia, the fax has an opt-out 20 notice meeting certain requirements. 21 The Act creates a private right of action, providing for 22 statutory damages in the amount of $500 for each violation as 23 well as injunctive relief against future violations. 24 § 227(b)(3). 25 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(C). 47 U.S.C. The parties do not dispute that Boehringer’s fax lacked any 26 opt-out notice, and the question is, therefore, whether it was an 27 “unsolicited advertisement.” 28 advertisement” as “any material advertising the commercial 29 availability or quality of any property, goods, or services which 30 is transmitted to any person without that person’s prior express 31 invitation or permission, in writing or otherwise.” 32 § 227(a)(5). The Act defines “unsolicited 47 U.S.C. Exercising its delegated rulemaking authority over 6 Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page7 of 13 1 the TCPA pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2), the FCC has 2 promulgated a rule elaborating on the Act’s definition of 3 “unsolicited advertisement.” 4 the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991; Junk Fax Prevention Act of 5 2005, 71 Fed. Reg. 25967, 25973 (May 3, 2006) (the “2006 Rule”). 6 The 2006 Rule states, in relevant part, that Rules and Regulations Implementing 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 facsimile messages that promote goods or services even at no cost, such as free magazine subscriptions, catalogs, or free consultations or seminars, are unsolicited advertisements under the TCPA’s definition. In many instances, “free” seminars serve as a pretext to advertise commercial products and services. Similarly, “free” publications are often part of an overall marketing campaign to sell property, goods, or services. For instance, while the publication itself may be offered at no cost to the facsimile recipient, the products promoted within the publication are often commercially available. Based on this, it is reasonable to presume that such messages describe the “quality of any property, goods, or services.” Therefore, facsimile communications regarding such free goods and services, if not purely “transactional,” would require the sender to obtain the recipient’s permission beforehand, in the absence of an [established business relationship]. Id. 32 defines offending advertisements as those promoting “the 33 commercial availability or quality of [the firm’s] property, 34 goods, or services.” The Rule itself comports with the statutory language, which 47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(5). 35 The district court interpreted the Rule as “requir[ing] 36 plaintiffs to show that the fax has a commercial pretext -- i.e., 37 ‘that the defendant advertised, or planned to advertise, its 7 Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page8 of 13 1 products or services at the seminar.’” Physicians Healthsource, 2 2015 WL 144728, at *3 (quoting Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. 3 Richmond, the Am. Int'l Univ. in London, Inc., No. 13-CV-4564 4 (CS), 2014 WL 4626230, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2014)). 5 not disagree. 6 that a firm sent an unsolicited fax promoting a free seminar 7 discussing a subject that relates to the firm’s products or 8 services, there is a plausible conclusion that the fax had the 9 commercial purpose of promoting those products or services. We do But, at the pleading stage, where it is alleged 10 Businesses are always eager to promote their wares and usually do 11 not fund presentations for no business purpose. 12 can rebut such an inference by showing that it did not or would 13 not advertise its products or services at the seminar, but only 14 after discovery. 15 Rule. 16 interpreting a statute, we must begin by examining the language 17 of the provision at issue.” 18 (2d Cir. 2002). 19 presume that such messages [advertising free seminars] describe 20 the ‘quality of any property, goods, or services,’” potentially 21 violating the TCPA. 22 U.S.C. § 227(a)(3)). The defendant This interpretation comports with the 2006 “In interpreting an administrative regulation, as in Resnik v. Swartz, 303 F.3d 147, 151 The 2006 Rule states that “it is reasonable to 2006 Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. at 25973 (quoting 47 8 Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page9 of 13 1 Of course, as other courts have ruled,1 not every 2 unsolicited fax promoting a free seminar satisfies the Rule. 3 There must be a commercial nexus to a firm’s business, i.e., its 4 property, products, or services; that, in our view, is satisfied 5 at the pleading stage where facts are alleged that the subject of 6 the free seminar relates to that business. 7 at faxes promoting free seminars per se,2 but states only that, 8 “[i]n many instances, ‘free’ seminars serve as a pretext to The Rule does not aim 1 See Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Stryker Sales Corp., 65 F. Supp. 3d 482, 489 (W.D. Mich. 2015); Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Richmond, the Am. Int’l Univ. in London, Inc., No. 13CV-4564 (CS), 2014 WL 4626230, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2014) (“While the [2006 Rule] could be read to categorize all faxes promoting free seminars as unsolicited advertisements, many courts require plaintiffs to show that the defendant advertised, or planned to advertise, its products or services at the seminar.”); Addison Automatics, Inc. v. RTC Group, Inc., No. 12 C 9869, 2013 WL 3771423, at *2 (N.D. Ill. July 16, 2013) (“[F]axes promoting free seminars may be unsolicited advertisements because free seminars are often a pretext to market products or services.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. v. Forest Pharms., Inc., No. 4:12-CV-02224, 2013 WL 1076540, at *4 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 13, 2013); Phillips Long Dang, D.C., P.C. v. XLHealth Corp., No. 1:09-CV-1076-RWS, 2011 WL 553826, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Feb. 7, 2011) (“[T]he Court does not read the FCC Promulgation as creating a per se ban on free seminar communications.”). 2 Appellant relies on another provision of the 2006 Rule -that “applications and materials regarding educational opportunities and conferences sent to persons who are not yet participating or enrolled in such programs are unsolicited advertisements,” 2006 Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. at 25973 -- to support its argument that faxes promoting free seminars are per se violations of the TCPA. We are unconvinced. The cited provision targets pretextual materials that promote, for example, enrollment at particular educational institutions; it does not purport to create a per se rule of the sort appellant advances. See 2006 Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. at 25974. 9 Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page10 of 13 1 advertise commercial products and services.” 2 Reg. at 25973 (“[M]essages that promote goods and services even 3 at no cost, such as . . . free . . . seminars, are unsolicited 4 advertisements under the TCPA’s definition.”). 5 but relevant context, the Rule states that ”a trade 6 organization’s newsletter sent via facsimile would not constitute 7 an unsolicited advertisement, so long as the newsletter's primary 8 purpose is informational, rather than to promote commercial 9 products.” 10 2006 Rule, 71 Fed. In a different Id. Requiring plaintiffs to plead specific facts alleging that 11 specific products or services would be, or were, promoted at the 12 free seminar would impede the purposes of the TCPA. 13 Dell Fin. Servs., LLC, 727 F.3d 265, 271 (3d Cir. 2013) (“Because 14 the TCPA is a remedial statute, it should be construed to benefit 15 consumers.”); Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Alma Lasers, Inc., 16 No. 12 C 4978, 2012 WL 4120506, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 18, 2012) 17 (“Congress enacted the TCPA to prevent the shifting of 18 advertising costs to recipients of unsolicited fax 19 advertisements.”) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 102-317, at 10 (1991); S. 20 Rep. No. 102–78, at 2, 5 (1991), reprinted in 1991 U.S.C.C.A.N. 21 1968, 1972 (“[U]nsolicited calls placed to fax machines, and 22 cellular or paging telephone numbers often impose a cost on the 23 called party (fax messages require the called party to pay for 24 the paper used . . .)”)). 25 attended the free seminar -- in many cases it will be difficult See Gager v. And -- unless plaintiffs actually 10 Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page11 of 13 1 for plaintiffs to know whether it was in fact used to advertise a 2 defendant’s products or services. 3 3, 604 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The Twombly plausibility 4 standard, which applies to all civil actions . . . does not 5 prevent a plaintiff from pleading facts alleged upon information 6 and belief where the facts are peculiarly within the possession 7 and control of the defendant.”) (internal quotation marks 8 omitted). 9 See Arista Records, LLC v. Doe Two fanciful examples illustrate the distinction. If a 10 complaint alleged that the Handy Widget Company funded a 11 professorship at a local law school in the name of its deceased 12 founder and faxed invitations on its letterhead to an inaugural 13 lecture entitled “The Relevance of Greek Philosophers to 14 Deconstructionism,” the complaint would not state a claim under 15 the TCPA because the Handy Widget Company is not in the business 16 of philosophical musings. 17 Company faxed invitations to a free seminar on increasing 18 widgets’ usefulness and productivity, a claim under the TCPA 19 would be validly alleged. 20 could rebut at the summary judgment stage with evidence showing 21 that it did not feature its products or services at the seminar. 22 In contrast, if the Handy Widget Of course, the Handy Widget Company Boehringer’s fax advertised a “dinner meeting” to discuss 23 two medical conditions -- Female Sexual Dysfunction (FSD) and 24 Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD) -- and their 25 “pathophysiology models, epidemiology, and diagnosis.” 11 J. App’x Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page12 of 13 1 at 24. 2 the business of treating diseases and medical conditions, such as 3 FSD and HSDD. 4 the dinner meeting was “sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim 5 Pharmaceuticals, Inc.” 6 doctor, whom Boehringer would presumably hope to persuade to 7 prescribe its drugs to patients. 8 that Boehringer’s fax advertised a free seminar relating to its 9 business. 10 As a pharmaceutical company, Boehringer was generally in Moreover, the fax makes clear to the invitee that Id. The fax invitation was sent to a Therefore, facts were alleged In addition, Boehringer’s seeking approval from the FDA for 11 the marketing of Flibanserin is relevant, although not 12 dispositive. 13 remedy for the ailments to be discussed at the event. 14 sure, Boehringer was prohibited from, inter alia, “promoting” an 15 unapproved drug, 21 C.F.R. § 312.7(a), but that prohibition is 16 not necessarily inconsistent with the free dinner’s mentioning 17 the possible future availability of the drug. 18 statute or Rule limits their scope to the advertisement of 19 products or services then available. 20 Although not approved, the drug is intended as a To be Nothing in the In defense, Boehringer can present, inter alia, testimony of 21 the dinner meeting participants as well as provide the meeting’s 22 agenda, transcript, presentation slides, speaker list, or any 23 internal emails or correspondences discussing the meeting. 24 Physicians Healthsource, Inc. v. Stryker Sales Corp., 65 F. Supp. 25 3d 482, 492 (W.D. Mich. 2015) (holding that “the TCPA’s text does 12 See Case 15-288, Document 87-1, 02/03/2017, 1961166, Page13 of 13 1 not require a court to put on evidentiary blinders in deciding 2 whether a particular fax amounts to an advertisement” and 3 allowing parties to present evidence beyond the four corners of 4 the fax -- such as presentation slides -- to determine if a fax 5 promoting a free seminar was pretextual). 6 that Boehringer used the seminar to advertise other drugs or 7 services in its inventory –- which would certainly support 8 finding a violation of the TCPA. 9 10 11 It is also possible CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we vacate and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 12 13

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?