throbber
Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00319-AT
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-020690-AT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., FISHER-
`ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS, INC., and
`ROSEMOUNT INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SIPCO LLC, and
`IP CO., LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ)
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`SIPCO LLC, and
`IP CO., LLC (d/b/a INTUS IQ)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO., EMERSON
`PROCESS MANAGEMENT LLLP,
`FISHER-ROSEMOUNT SYSTEMS,
`INC., ROSEMOUNT INC., BP, p.l.c., BP
`AMERICA, INC., and BP AMERICA
`PRODUCTION COMPANY,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EMERSON/BP JOINT OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
`
`The Emerson and BP parties jointly oppose the motion filed by SIPCO/IPCO
`
`seeking to re-transfer the second-filed action back to the Eastern District of Texas,
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 15
`
`
`
`pulling the first-filed action Emerson initiated here along with it. Contrary to
`
`SIPCO/IPCO’s representations to this Court, this action has strong ties to the state
`
`of Georgia, and more particularly the Atlanta area. Moreover, neither the alleged
`
`witness convenience nor the Texas court’s alleged prior knowledge of the patents
`
`favor transfer, and SIPCO/IPCO’s motion simply comes too late. Accordingly, the
`
`requested transfer should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`SIPCO/IPCO Have Strong Ties To The Northern District of Georgia
`
`Both SIPCO and IPCO are Georgia corporations with offices in Atlanta. The
`
`connections between these actions and this District do not stop there. Indeed,
`
`neither company is known to have offices outside this District and no claim of such
`
`office in Texas, or elsewhere, has even been made.
`
`
`
`Mr. David Petite, a named inventor on all of the patents asserted by SIPCO
`
`and SIPCO/IPCO’s Chairman (formerly President and Chief Executive Officer),
`
`Mrs. Candida Petite, SIPCO/IPCO’s Chief Operating Officer, and Mr. Joel
`
`Goldman, SIPCO/IPCO’s former in-house counsel (and person with interest in the
`
`outcome of this litigation), all live and work in the Atlanta area.1 The same is true
`
`
`1 The IPCO/SIPCO 7.1 Disclosure identifies Mr. and Mrs. Petite, GE Intellectual
`Property Licensing, Inc./GE, Tagivan II LLC and Mr. Goldman as persons or
`corporations with interest in the outcome of these litigations. [319 action - Doc. 8].
`Although SIPCO/IPCO again depicts this case as one involving large international
`corporations against a small, local businessman, SIPCO/IPCO’s corporate
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 3 of 15
`
`
`
`of patent attorneys at the Atlanta office of the Troutman Sanders law firm who
`
`prosecuted many of the patents asserted in these actions and who, along with Mr.
`
`Goldman, are alleged to have acted inequitably in representing SIPCO/IPCO before
`
`the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). [Doc. 106 in the 690
`
`transferred action]. Each of these individuals is expected to be a witness at trial, and
`
`yet, other than Mr. Petite, SIPCO/IPCO’s motion makes no mention of any of these
`
`people. Further, SIPCO/IPCO fails to address the fact that Robert Colao, Ghaith
`
`Matalkah, Adam Crall, Ryan Schneider and Christopher Kent, all identified in their
`
`Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Disclosures as persons with relevant knowledge, also live and
`
`work in the Atlanta area.
`
`
`
`The present motion presents the surreal situation in which two Atlanta-based
`
`corporations assert that an action filed by them and an action filed against them have
`
`“no connection” to Georgia and seek to transfer those actions out of their “home”
`
`court. [Memorandum in Support of Motion to Transfer, p. 2]. This is not the first
`
`time SIPCO and IPCO have asked this Court to transfer a case involving these same
`
`patents. SIPCO and IPCO have both individually asked this Court to transfer earlier
`
`actions involving these patents to the Eastern District of Texas. That request was
`
`
`disclosure statements make clear that they are being supported by both an entity
`that finances patent assertions, and General Electric, one of the largest corporations
`in the world.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 4 of 15
`
`
`
`rejected in both cases. See Exhs. B and C, attached to Toohey Declaration, Exhibit
`
`A. Indeed, in both, transfer was denied, in part, on the basis that SIPCO and IPCO
`
`are both Georgia corporations with a main office and employees in Atlanta. See,
`
`e.g. Exh. B, p. 6; see also Exh. C, SIPCO, LLC v. Control4 Corp., 2012 WL
`
`526074 (N.D. Georgia, Feb. 16, 2012) at *2. Those facts have not changed.
`
`
`
`Given SIPCO/IPCO’s status as Atlanta-based, Georgia corporations,
`
`controlling case authority required Emerson to file its Declaratory Judgment action
`
`either in this District or in a district in which SIPCO/IPCO had enforced the patent
`
`being challenged. Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int’l Co., 553 F.3d 1324, 334
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2008). Prior to filing its Declaratory Judgment action here, Emerson was
`
`aware that SIPCO and IPCO had both asserted one or more of their patents in
`
`district courts throughout the country, including this District, the Northern District
`
`of California, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Emerson, however, was under no obligation to evaluate which of SIPCO/IPCO’s
`
`many patents had been asserted in each of those districts, or to decide between those
`
`districts, when it was clear that jurisdiction and venue against both SIPCO and
`
`IPCO was proper here as to all of SIPCO/IPCO’s patents. Truth be told, Emerson
`
`preferred to file its declaratory judgment action in one of its own home courts, either
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 5 of 15
`
`
`
`in St. Louis or Minneapolis, but filed in SIPCO/IPCO’s home court because venue
`
`was plainly proper here.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum Should Not Be Lightly Disturbed
`
`Emerson filed its declaratory judgment action in this District on January 30,
`
`2015. That action is undeniably the first-filed action and weight should be given to
`
`that forum selection. Where, as here, a second, substantially overlapping action is
`
`filed, the first-filed court typically will hear the matter and is empowered to enjoin
`
`the second-filed action. Manual v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132, 1135 (11th Cir.
`
`2005); Collegiate Licensing C. v. American Cas. Co. of Reading, Pa., 713 F.3d 71,
`
`78 (11th Cir. 2013). It is well established that “the plaintiff’s choice of forum should
`
`not be disturbed unless it is clearly outweighed by other considerations.” Van
`
`Howell v. Tanner, 650 F.2d 619, 616 (5th Cir. 1981). The party (or parties) seeking
`
`transfer bear the burden of establishing that the Section 1404(a) factors weigh in
`
`favor of transfer. Spanx, Inc. v. Time Three Clothiers, LLC, No. 13-cv-710-WSD,
`
`2013 WL 5636684 at *1 (N. D. Ga. Oct. 15, 2013). Absent a showing of a unique
`
`or unexpected burden, a company should not be successful in arguing that litigation
`
`in its home court is inconvenient. Wesley-Jessen Corp. v. Pilkington Visioncare,
`
`Inc., 157 F.R.D. 215, 218 (D. Del. 1993), but see, In re Link_A_Media Devices
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 6 of 15
`
`
`
`Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1223-34 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (state of incorporation alone –
`
`without corporate offices within that state – not dispositive of venue).
`
`
`
`SIPCO and IPCO are both Atlanta-based Georgia corporations. Their
`
`employees, including Mr. and Mrs. Petite, Mr. Goldman, Mr. Colao and Mr.
`
`Matalkah, live and work in the area. These facts are not in dispute. Messrs. Weeks
`
`and Yancey, attorneys involved in the prosecution of the patents at issue, both
`
`worked at the Atlanta offices of the Troutman firm and at least Mr. Weeks is still
`
`resident at that office. Exh. D. The relevant files created and maintained by these
`
`individuals, as well as others at the Troutman firm, are maintained in Atlanta.
`
`Indeed, despite document requests to SIPCO and IPCO requesting their production
`
`and a Rule 45 subpoena to the Troutman firm, Troutman’s patent prosecution files
`
`have not been produced and it appears that motions to compel may be necessary.
`
`This Court is in the best position to order the production of these Atlanta-based
`
`records. Beyond being Emerson’s choice of venue, this District plainly has
`
`significant connection with the dispute.
`
`
`
`
`
`C. Witness Convenience Does Not Favor Transfer
`
`Given the location of its operations, employees and documents, SIPCO/IPCO
`
`argues that the Texas court would be more convenient for the Emerson parties and
`
`BP. But that consideration appears insincere – it is not Emerson or BP who seek the
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 7 of 15
`
`
`
`transfer on behalf of their witnesses, and Texas is not more convenient for the
`
`relevant witnesses in this case. Most of the relevant Emerson information and
`
`witnesses will come from Rosemount’s facilities in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The
`
`accused products were developed by Rosemount and the individuals SIPCO/IPCO
`
`have noticed for deposition work and live in the Minneapolis area. Specifically,
`
`SIPCO/IPCO noticed Messrs. Robert Karschnia (Vice President – Wireless), Ted
`
`Schnaare (Director of Engineering – Wireless) and Eric Rotvold (Senior Engineer –
`
`Wireless) for deposition. All three live and work in the Minneapolis area. See
`
`Notices of Deposition Exhs. E-G (setting depositions in Minnesota). SIPCO/IPCO
`
`has also noticed Mr. John Groves for deposition. Mr. Groves is an Emerson
`
`employee who lives and works in St. Louis. See Exh. H (noting St. Louis as
`
`location of deposition). Not one of these individuals lives or works in Texas. The
`
`Eastern District of Texas is not more convenient for any of these witnesses – indeed,
`
`trips to both courts would require an air flight and hotel accommodations. This
`
`Court is in the heart of Atlanta, SIPCO/IPCO request transfer back to the Tyler
`
`Division of the Texas court. Travel to that court would require air travel and then a
`
`drive of over 2 hours. [See Doc. 75-3 (Google Maps travel report)].
`
`
`
`SIPCO/IPCO also noticed Mr. Thomas Fredricks, a Texas resident, for
`
`deposition. Mr. Fredricks, however, does not work with the accused Emerson
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 8 of 15
`
`
`
`Smart Wireless products and never has. Mr. Fredricks presently works for Emerson
`
`Process Management Regulator Technologies, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
`
`Emerson Electric Co., but formerly worked directly for Emerson Electric Co. Exh.
`
`I, ¶¶ 2. It was in that capacity that Mr. Fredricks was called upon to execute a
`
`license agreement between Emerson and SIPCO/IPCO in late 2011. Id. at ¶ 3. That
`
`license agreement related to a relatively small home thermostat product offering,
`
`and did not involve the accused Smart Wireless products at issue in this case in any
`
`way. Mr. Fredricks is not believed to have any information relevant to this action,
`
`but to the extent that his testimony might be required, he has agreed to travel to
`
`Atlanta to do so. Id. at ¶ 4.
`
`
`
`SIPCO/IPCO raise three other alleged convenience of witness arguments.
`
`None of those additional arguments have any greater merit. First, SIPCO/IPCO
`
`notes that Emerson’s supplier of wireless communication technology used in the
`
`accused products, Linear Technologies Inc. (formerly Dust Networks), has an office
`
`in Dallas, Texas. What SIPCO/IPCO fail to concede is that the Linear
`
`Technologies’ Dallas office has no connection with this dispute and no relevant
`
`witness from that office has been identified. Linear may have an office in Dallas,
`
`but it is headquartered in San Jose, California, as demonstrated by even the
`
`information SIPCO/IPCO submitted in support of its present motion. See Doc. 113
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 9 of 15
`
`
`
`(1:15-cv-00319-AT), Exh. 3, attached to Reppucci Declaration. SIPCO/IPCO well
`
`knows that the relevant information it seeks is at Linear’s headquarters in Northern
`
`California, the very place to which SIPCO/IPCO addressed their Rule 45 Notice of
`
`Deposition of Linear. Exh. J.2 Linear’s Dallas Design Center appears to be
`
`involved in the development of analog IC chips, not wireless communication
`
`products. See Exh. K.
`
`
`
`Finally, SIPCO/IPCO note that one or more of the BP defendants have
`
`offices in Texas. But what SIPCO/IPCO does not reveal is that those offices are in
`
`Houston, a town within the Southern District of Texas – not the Eastern District
`
`where SIPCO/IPCO want to transfer these cases back to despite their being no
`
`legitimate grounds to do so. Moreover, BP is a mere purchaser and user of the
`
`accused Emerson Smart Wireless products. In their Second Amended Complaint in
`
`the action filed in Texas, SIPCO/IPCO still rely on the purchase and use of those
`
`products to support their infringement allegations against BP. But the infringement
`
`allegations made against BP could be made against any purchaser/user of those
`
`products. SIPCO/IPCO nevertheless again argues that BP is allegedly an important
`
`
`2 If information known to Linear is as critical to the outcome of this case as
`SIPCO/IPCO suggest, SIPCO/IPCO had the key to unlock the “problem” by
`naming Linear as a defendant in this action. After all, Linear is the supplier of the
`wireless communication technology at the heart of this dispute.
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 10 of 15
`
`
`
`party because it somehow jointly developed the accused products. Memo. at p. 23.
`
`Even if true, SIPCO/IPCO has yet to explain how BP is an important party in the
`
`action filed in Texas, but not the action filed here. Not only is SIPCO/IPCO’s joint
`
`development allegation untrue, it is not even pled. Moreover, “joint development”
`
`by itself does not give rise to a cause of action for infringement.
`
`
`
`The Patent Act is very specific about what acts constitute infringement.
`
`Section 271 of the Patent Act provides that “whoever without authority makes, uses,
`
`offers to sell, or sells any patented inventions, within the United States or imports
`
`into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor,
`
`infringes the patent.” 35 U.S.C. § 271. Nowhere in the Patent Act is proffering
`
`design suggestions, establishing performance goals, watching a product
`
`demonstration, or offering critiques of another party’s product defined as an act of
`
`infringement. Even if a BP entity had given feedback to Emerson, that feedback is
`
`not a cognizable act of infringement.
`
`
`
`Nor is it true that BP jointly developed the accused Emerson products.
`
`Emerson brought its own products, its own people and its own equipment to a test
`
`site provided by a BP entity at a refining facility in Washington state (Cherry Point).
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 11 of 15
`
`
`
`See Exhs. L and M.3 BP did not buy those products or pay for that testing and the
`
`tested products remained Emerson’s property. Exh. L at ¶ 7. The employees of
`
`both companies, Messrs. Karschnia and Lafferty, have expressly rejected the
`
`assertion that Emerson and BP jointly developed the accused products. Exh. L at ¶¶
`
`6-10, 13; Exh. M at ¶¶ 6-12. SIPCO/IPCO creates support for its contrary, unpled
`
`assertion by misconstruing documents produced in this action. Those documents,
`
`however, do not establish joint development and Emerson has objected to
`
`SIPCO/IPCO’s mischaracterizations of those documents as improper. See Doc. 81
`
`(690 transferred action). Nowhere in those documents is it said that BP and
`
`Emerson jointly developed the accused technology. Indeed, even the excerpts
`
`SIPCO/IPCO’s counsel cropped out of those documents supports the points made
`
`by Messrs. Karschnia and Lafferty. See Doc. 76, Reppucci Decl., Exh. 3 [EMR-
`
`SIP00242581] (noting that “BP will provide a platform for field trials of agreed
`
`development products. Emerson will be responsible for the cost of test devices, for
`
`engineering support and for product development.”). That, combined with
`
`Emerson’s and BP’s long-standing denial of SIPCO/IPCO’s assertion, should have
`
`ended the dispute.
`
`
`3 The Cherry Point facility at which Emerson’s products were tested is owned by
`BP Products North America, not one of the named defendants. Exh. L at ¶ 11.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 12 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`In any event, should BP be required to participate further in this action, and
`
`the BP parties have moved for severance and stay under the customer suit
`
`exception, see Document 71 in the transferred 690 action, the BP parties are willing
`
`to bring their witnesses to trial in Atlanta. Moreover, although he is no longer
`
`working for BP, Mr. David Lafferty has also agreed to come to trial in Atlanta if his
`
`testimony should prove relevant and necessary. Exh. L at ¶ 15.
`
`
`
`Finally, SIPCO/IPCO argue that trial in Texas will be more convenient for
`
`the experts identified by the parties. Memo. in Support at 14-15. But, like counsel’s
`
`convenience, the convenience of the forum for expert witnesses is not usually
`
`considered in a 1404(a) analysis. Experts will travel for trials; otherwise they will
`
`not be heard. Accordingly, like counsel, they will travel to the forum where the
`
`action is tried and they are not commonly treated as non-party witnesses.
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`The Texas Court Does Not Have More Relevant Experience
`
`SIPCO/IPCO identify a number of actions they individually filed in various
`
`divisions of the Eastern District of Texas, and argue that the Texas court has greater
`
`knowledge of the issues in this action. That assertion rings hollow in light of
`
`several key facts. First, not one of those cases went to trial and few got to even the
`
`Markman claim construction. Second, those cases were conducted some time ago
`
`and the judges involved were likely busy with other matters in the meantime.
`
`
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 13 of 15
`
`
`
`Critically, the Texas action had been assigned to Judge Schroeder, and he had no
`
`prior experience with the patents involved here. Judge Gilstap in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas had prior experience with one or more of the patents at issue here,
`
`but he recused himself from the case. Order of Recusal, Doc. 55 (690 transferred
`
`action).
`
`
`
`
`
`E.
`
`SIPCO/IPCO’s Motion Comes Too Late
`
`The question of venue has been at issue since December 2015 and has been
`
`extensively briefed, from a multitude of perspectives, in two district courts. Had
`
`SIPCO/IPCO wanted to challenge venue in this forum, it should have done so
`
`directly more than a year ago. Instead, SIPCO/IPCO filed a competing,
`
`substantially overlapping action in Texas nearly nine months after Emerson filed its
`
`action. The Texas court put a stop to that strategy, but not before extensive effort
`
`was invested in briefing two courts as to the impropriety of SIPCO/IPCO’s
`
`approach. SIPCO/IPCO now seek to reverse that loss, and to move this case to a
`
`forum more to its liking, by filing a simple 1404 challenge. That challenge,
`
`however, should have been made a year ago. SIPCO/IPCO waived that challenge
`
`by not bringing it in a timely manner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 14 of 15
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Ryan T. Pumpian
`
` By: /s/ William V. Custer
`
`Ryan T. Pumpian
`Georgia Bar No. 589822
`rpumpian@bloomsugarman.com
`BLOOM SUGARMAN, LLP
`977 Ponce de Leom Ave., N.E.
`Atlanta, Georgia 30306
`Tel: 404-577-7710
`Fax: 404-420-0828
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ James D. Berquist
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Donald L. Jackson
`James D. Berquist
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST
`JACKSON & GOWDEY, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7700
`Facsimile: (571) 765-7200
`djackson@dbjg.com
`jberquist@dbjg.com
`sdavidson@dbjg.com
`
`Attorneys for BP Parties
`
`
` William V. Custer
`Georgia Bar No. 202910
`bill.custer@bryancave.com
`Damon J. Whitaker
`Georgia Bar No. 752722
`damon.whitaker@bryancave.com
`BRYAN CAVE, LLP
`One Atlantic Center, Fourteenth Floor
`1201 W. Peachtree St., N.W.
`Atlanta, Georgia 30309
`Tel: 404-572-6828
`Fax: 404-420-0828
`
`By: /s/ James D. Berquist
`Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`Donald L. Jackson
`James D. Berquist
`J. Scott Davidson
`DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON &
`GOWDEY, LLP
`8300 Greensboro Dr., Suite 500
`McLean, Virginia 22102
`Telephone: (571) 765-7700
`Facsimile: (571) 765-7200
`djackson@dbjg.com
`jberquist@dbjg.com
`sdavidson@dbjg.com
`
`Attorneys for Emerson Parties
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-02690-AT Document 126 Filed 08/09/16 Page 15 of 15
`
`
`
`Local Rule 7.1(D) Certification
`
` I
`
` hereby certify that the foregoing pleading has been prepared with Times
`New Roman font, 14 point, one of the font and point selections approved by the
`Court in L.R. 5.1B, N.D. Ga.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ William V. Custer
`Georgia Bar No. 202910
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
` I
`
` Paul J. Cronin
` James C. Hall
` NUTTER, MCCLENNEN & FISH
` LLP
` 155 Seaport Boulevard
` Boston, Massachusetts 02210
` peronin@nutter.com
` jhall@nutter.com
`
`
`
` hereby certify that on this date, I filed Emerson/BP Joint Opposition to
`Motion to Transfer with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will
`automatically notify Defendants' counsel of record as follows:
`
`J. Christopher Fox, II
`Michael Coleman
`THOMPSON HINE LLP
`Two Alliance Center, Ste 1600
`3560 Lenox Road
`Atlanta, Georgia 30326
`Chris.Fox@ThompsonHine.com
`Michael.Coleman@ThompsonHine.com
`
`
`
`
`
` Dated: August 9, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ William V. Custer
`Georgia Bar No. 202910
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket