Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.

5 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. XYZ Two Way Radio Serv., Inc. v. Uber Techs., Inc., --- F. Supp. 3d ---, No. 15-cv-3015 (FB) (CLP), 2016 WL 5854224 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 6, 2016)

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPJanuary 29, 2017

    They are drawn from the complaint and taken as true, withall inferences drawn in the plaintiffs’ favor. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002).A. False AdvertisingThe Lanham Act prohibits any material “false or misleading representation of fact” in connection with commercial advertising or promotion. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(B).

  2. Inmate may proceed with claim alleging the denial of his right to exercise

    Bergstein & Ullrich, LLPJune 19, 2020

    The Court of Appeals says those prior admissions may be useful in attacking plaintiff's credibility later in the case, but they cannot be relevant in determining if the amended complaint states a claim. The Circuit cites two cases, Dangler v. Off-Track Betting, 193 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 1999), and Chambers v. Time Warner, 282 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2002).

  3. Another Way To Challenge Standing In Data Breach Cases

    Ropes & Gray LLPDavid T. CohenApril 27, 2017

    In addition, on a facial challenge a court may consider certain additional documents, but only those in limited categories—for instance, materials incorporated into the complaint by reference, documents relied on by the complaint, certain public records, and matters subject to judicial notice. See, e.g., Philips v. Pitt Cty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009) (recognizing a court “may property take judicial notice of matters of public record”); Doss v. Clearwater Title Co., 551 F.3d 635, 640 (7th Cir. 2008) (recognizing a court make take judicial notice of certain materials); Am. Chiropractic Ass’n, Inc. v. Trigon Healthcare Inc., 367 F.3d 212, 234 (4th Cir. 2004) (recognizing a court may generally consider documents “integral and explicitly relied on in the complaint”); Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2002) (recognizing a court may consider documents attached to, referenced by, or integral to a complaint).4 See, e.g., Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1121 (9th Cir. 2014).

  4. Court Dismisses Lanham Act Challenge to “Safety” Claim as Puffery

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPNovember 7, 2016

    DISCUSSIONThe facts relevant to each of the plaintiffs’ claims are in corporated in to the discussion of that claim.They are drawn from the complaint an d taken as true, with all inferences drawn in the plaintiffs’ favor.See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc. , 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002).A. False AdvertisingThe Lanham Act prohibits any material “false or misleading representation of fact” in connectionwith commercialadvertisingorpromotion.15 U.S.C.§ 1125(a)(1)(B).If a statement does not qualify as false advertising under the Lanham Act, it is not actionable underthe General Business Law, either.See ONY, Inc. v. Cornerstone Therapeutics, Inc. , 720 F.3d 490, 498 (2d Cir.2013) (“There is . . . no reason to believe that the New York Court of Appeals would interpret state law to provide for more expansive liability than does the Lanham Act.”

  5. Second Circuit Adopts False Advertising Safe Harbor for Statements Made on FDA-approved Labeling

    Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLPAugust 8, 2016

    6 We may consider this document because the pleading “‘relies heavily upon its terms and effect,’ which renders the document ‘integral’ to the complaint.” Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir. 2002) (quoting Int’l Audiotext Network, Inc. v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 62 F.3d 69, 72 (2d Cir. 1995)).7 Apotex’s reliance on Tyco Healthcare Grp. LP v. Mut. Pharm. Co., 762 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014) is misplaced.