Summary
noting the court in Goshen held that "the consumer must be deceived in New York"
Summary of this case from In re Universal Serv. Fund Tele. Billing PracticesOpinion
Nos. 00-CV-5332, 98-CV-0675, 98-CV-1492, 98-CV-3287, 99-CV-1988, 99-CV-6142, 00-CV-2340, 00-CV-4442, 00-CV-4632, 02-CV-0599.
July 16, 2002.
Weitz Luxenberg, New York City by Perry Weitz, Robert J. Gordon, Jerry Kristal, Richard L. Akel, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, Bernstein, New York City by Steven E. Fineman, Thomas M. Sobol, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann, Bernstein, San Francisco, CA by Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Richard M. Heimann, Robert J. Nelson, Sporwood Wilner Maciejewski Matthews, P.A., Jacksonville, FL by Norwood Wilner, Wait, Chesley, Waite, Schneider, Bayless Chesley, Cincinnati, OH by Stanley Chesley, Brown Rudnick Freed Gesmer, Boston, Mass. by Gregory T. Carnold, Wayne F. Dennison, Sheller Ludwig Badley, Philadelphia, PA by Charles Mangan, for plaintiff in Simon I Simon II.
Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C., Baltimore, MD by Joshua Kassner, John Angelos, O'Donoghue O'Donoghue, Washington, DC, for plaintiff National Asbestos.
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes Lerach, New York City by Melvyn I. Weiss, Beth A. Kaswan, Michael C. Spencer, for plaintiff Bergeron.
Dewey Ballantine, LLP, New York City by Paul J. Bschorr, Vincent R. Fitz-Patrick, Jr., Michael Hefter, Heather K. McDevitt, Dewey Ballantine, LLP, Washington, DC by Martha J. Talley, for plaintiffs Blue Cross, et al.
The Cuneo Law Group, Washington, DC by Jonathon W. Cuneo, Hutton Hutton, Wichita, KS by Mark B. Hutton, Derek S. Casey, Chan P. Townsley, Richardson Ward, Tulsa, OK by Gary Richardson, for plaintiff Mason, et al.
Orrick, Herrington Sutcliffe, LLP, New York City by Peter A. Bicks, James L. Stengel, Thompson, McNaboe, Ashley Bull, LLC, P.A., Portland, MA by Thomas R. McNaboe, Kazan, McClain, Edises, Simon Abrams, Steven Kazan, Oakland, CA, for plaintiff Raymark.
Sedgwick, Detert, Moran Arnold, New York City by Kevin J. Dunne, Eric M. Kraus, Kirkland Ellis, New York City by Marjorie P. Lindblom, David Bernick, Andrew R. McGaan, Deirdre A. Fox, Goodwin, Proctor Hoar, LLP, Boston, MA by U. Gwyn Williams, for defendant Brown Williamson.
Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, New York City by Harold Keith Gordon, Byron G. Stier, George Kostolampros, Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, Cleveland, OH by Theodore M. Grossman, Hugh R. Witing, Mark A. Belasic, Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, Washington, DC by Robert H. Klonoff, Jones, Day, Reavis Pogue, Dallas, TX by Jerome R. Doak, Margaret I. Lyle, Womble Carlyle Sandridge Rice, Winston-Salem, NC by Ursula M. Henninger, for defendant R.J. Reynolds.
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York City by Alan Mansfield, Robert J. Kirshenberg, Stephen L. Saxl, Shook, Hardy Bacon, LLP, Kansas City, MO. by William L. Allinder, Lori Connors McGroder, for defendant Lorillard Tobacco.
Simpson Thacher Bartlett, New York City by Michael V. Corrigan, Joseph M. McLauglin, Ronald M. Neuman, Adam I. Stein, for defendant BAT Industries, p.l.c.
Chadbourne Parke, LLP, New York City by Donald J. Strauber, David A. Wallace, Daniel Endick, for defendant BATCO.
Arnold Porter, Washington, DC by Peter Bleakley, Murray R. Garnick, David S. Eggert, Eric Suter, Dechert Price Rhoads, New York City by Peter L. Critchell, Collier, Shannon, Rill Scott, Washington, DC by John B. Williams, Thomas W. Mitchell, Goodwin, Proctor Hoar, Boston, MA by Kenneth J. Parsigian, Paul E. Namser, for defendant Philip Morris.
Debevoise Plimpton, New York City by Anne E. Cohen, Harry Zirlin, Steven S. Michaels, for defendant Council for Tobacco Research USA, Inc.
Davis Gilbert, LLP, New York City by Bruce J. Ginsberg, for defendant Hill Knowlton.
Seward Kissel, LLP, New York City by Jacob Horowitz, for defendant Tobacco Institute.
Jacob Medinger Finnegan, New York City by Bryan A. McKenna, for defendant Smokeless Tobacco.
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom, New York City by Arthur H. Aizley, Eric S. Sarner, for defendant U.S. Tobacco.
Kasowtiz Benson Torres Friedman, New York City by Leonard A. Feiwus, for defendant Liggett.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (BERGERON)
Plaintiff, a Massachusetts employees benefit fund, brought suit based on sections 349 and 350 of New York General Business Law. In doubt was whether New York law applied. See Bergeron v. Philip Morris, Inc., 100 F. Supp.2d 164 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). The New York Court of Appeals has now ruled that sections 349 and 350 of the New York Business Law do not apply to a consumer injured in a transaction outside the state; the consumer must be deceived in New York. Goshen v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, 2002 WL 1418408 (2002).
The plaintiff may wish to amend the complaint to plead Massachusetts law. If so, the case should be transferred to the district court of Massachusetts for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, where amendment may be sought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404. If the plaintiff wishes the case transferred, it should submit an order of transfer within 10 days. Otherwise the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action on an order to be submitted by defendants.
So ordered.