Millennial Plastic Surgery PLLC v. James

Background

Millennial Plastic Surgery PLLC asked the court for emergency preliminary relief based on an Instagram post dated November 16, 2021, that referenced Millennial. Millennial sought an order requiring Meghan James to remove that post, remove or restrict other social-media posts, and barring James or others from posting content that directly or indirectly referenced Millennial, its employees, affiliates, or agents.

The opinion states that the parties had entered several agreements, including provisions addressing irreparable harm and non-disparagement. The parties appeared to agree that the agreements were valid and enforceable and that performing and livestreaming certain procedures were contractual terms. They disputed who first breached the agreements. Millennial argued that James breached first when her Instagram account was banned from livestreaming the procedure. James argued, among other things, that Millennial had other ways to livestream or record the procedure and referred to possible medical-malpractice and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims.

Court’s analysis

A preliminary injunction is temporary relief issued before the case is finally resolved. The court explained that the party seeking one ordinarily must show likely success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without the injunction, that the balance of hardships favors that party, and that the injunction serves the public interest. Because the requested relief would require James to take affirmative action and could provide part of the ultimate relief sought, the court applied a heightened standard.

The court concluded that Millennial had shown likely irreparable harm. Millennial submitted evidence that individuals said they would no longer seek its services because of the post. The court also relied on the agreements’ provisions stating that a breach would cause irreparable harm and could support injunctive relief.

The court further found that Millennial was likely to succeed on its breach-of-contract claim and had made the clear showing required for the heightened standard. The court found that James had not fully addressed Millennial’s argument that the Instagram livestreaming ban constituted an earlier breach by Millennial. It also noted that James provided no supporting case law for several arguments, including reliance on a force-majeure clause.

The balance of hardships favored Millennial. Although removing the post would burden James, the court said she appeared to have agreed to that burden through the contract provisions and had stated at a hearing that she did not object to taking down the post. Without an injunction, Millennial could lose business and customers. The court also concluded that the public interest was not harmed by requiring removal of the post and slightly favored Millennial.

The opinion also discussed potential First Amendment concerns. It concluded that the contract provisions were clear and compelling evidence that James had waived relevant speech rights, although it did not resolve the parties’ possible medical-malpractice or emotional-distress claims.

Ruling

Judge Edgardo Ramos directed Meghan James, immediately, to cause the November 16, 2021 Instagram post referencing Millennial to be deleted, taken down, or otherwise made unviewable by third parties. The court did not grant the full range of relief requested by Millennial and stated that this did not mean later posts could not violate the parties’ agreements. The order was a preliminary-injunction ruling, not a final resolution of the underlying claims.