Pasternack v. Laboratory Corp. of America
892 F. Supp. 2d 540
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Pasternack sued LabCorp and ChoicePoint in 2010 for negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and Section 1983 claims.
- ChoicePoint moved to dismiss; the court dismissed that party’s claims in August 2011; Pasternack retained new counsel in September 2011.
- Pasternack sought leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (SAC), narrowing/adjusting claims against ChoicePoint and LabCorp, including eliminating the 1983 claim against ChoicePoint.
- LabCorp did not oppose the SAC; ChoicePoint opposed leave to amend as to ChoicePoint.
- The court granted leave to amend as to LabCorp but denied leave to amend as to ChoicePoint, concluding the proposed ChoicePoint claims were futile under New York law and relevant DOT regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pasternack may amend to assert negligence against ChoicePoint. | Pasternack seeks to address deficiencies and preserve NY-law negligence. | ChoicePoint argues amendments would be futile and prejudicial. | Denied; amendment as to ChoicePoint is not granted. |
| Whether Pasternack may amend to assert negligence against LabCorp. | Pasternack seeks to reinstate negligence/gross negligence claims. | LabCorp does not oppose amendments. | Granted; amendment as to LabCorp is allowed. |
| Whether a duty of care exists for ChoicePoint under NY law in this regulatory context. | Pasternack contends ChoicePoint owed a duty in interpreting DOT regs. | ChoicePoint contends no duty extends from DOT regs here. | No; no duty recognized for these circumstances. |
| Whether misinterpretation of DOT regulations by the MRO can support NY-law negligence claims. | MRO misinterpreted DOT regs; constitutes breach. | Regulatory misinterpretation does not establish negligence per se. | Denial of negligence claims grounded solely on regulatory misinterpretation. |
| Whether violation of DOT regulations can sustain private NY-law negligence liability. | Regulatory violation supports liability. | Regulatory violation is not negligence per se; needs more. | Not sufficient to plead plausible NY-law negligence; claims futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drake v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, 458 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 2006) (drugs testing regime; limits preemption and duty concepts in some contexts)
- Coleman v. Town of Hempstead, 30 F.Supp.2d 356 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (duty owed by LabCorp in urine testing cases; limits scope of duty)
- Santiago v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 956 F. Supp. 144 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) (duty to collect urine with due care; not extending to regulatory interpretations)
- Landon v. Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., 91 A.D.3d 79 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dept. 2011) (negligence claims in toxicology testing context; regulatory duties limited)
- Alfaro v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 210 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2000) (limit on judicially crafting duties; scope of duty is legal policy)