throbber
Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 1 of 25
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`SICIS, s.r.l.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`SHINEX MOSAICS GLOBAL, SHINEX
`MOSAICS USA, INEX INDUSTRIES,
`LTD, SACHIN PALSOKAR, and JOHN
`DOES 1-5,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`1:24-cv-1772-TWT
`
`MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT
`AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE ANSWER
`
`COMES NOW, SHINEX MOSAICS GLOBAL, SHINEX MOSAICS USA,
`
`INEX INDUSTRIES, LTD, and SACHIN PALSOKAR, (hereafter “Defendants”),
`
`and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(c), hereby files this Motion To Set Aside Default
`
`and Motion for Leave to File Defendants’ Answer in this action, on the grounds that
`
`a proper case has been made and that good cause exists to set aside the default based
`
`on the foregoing facts and circumstances. In support of the within Motion,
`
`Defendants show this court as follows:
`
`1. On April 24, 2024, Plaintiff SICIS, s.r.l., filed its Verified Complaint and
`
`request for Injunctive Relief against Defendants for alleged copyright
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 2 of 25
`
`infringement. [Doc. 1].
`
`2. On April 26, 2024, Plaintiff SICIS, s.r.l., filed its Motion for Temporary
`
`Restraining Order against Defendants. [Doc. 12].
`
`3. On April 29, 2024, Defendants’ counsel filed his Entry of Appearance on
`
`behalf of Defendants Shinex Mosaics Global, Shinex Mosaics USA, Inex
`
`Industries, Ltd, and Sachin Palsokar. [Doc. 13].
`
`4. On April 29, 2024, Defendants’ counsel communicated with Plaintiff’s
`
`counsel regarding the alleged infringement and Defendants’ desire to remove
`
`any allegedly infringing content from its platforms. Further, Defendants’
`
`counsel communicated Defendants’ desire to remove any infringing content
`
`from its platforms.
`
`5. On May 2, 2024, in contemplation of a prompt resolution and dismissal of the
`
`case, the Parties stipulated, agreed, and consented to entry of the Stipulated
`
`Preliminary Injunction to resolve Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary
`
`Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 13].
`
`6. On May 2, 2024, the Court entered an order granting the Parties Consent
`
`motion for Stipulated Preliminary Injunction [Doc. 15].
`
`7. On May 8, 2024, as ordered by the Court, Defendants filed its Certificate of
`
`Page 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 3 of 25
`
`Compliance with the terms of the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction. [Doc.
`
`16].
`
`8. From the time of filing of its Certificate of Compliance with the Court on May
`
`8, 2024, Defendants’ counsel and Plaintiff’s counsel have been in regular
`
`communication regarding alleged ongoing infringement by Defendants.
`
`9. Further, Defendants have been actively working to remove any infringing
`
`content from its platforms, and Plaintiff has been aware of Defendants
`
`ongoing efforts to remove any infringing content that Defendants have control
`
`over or have been made aware of by the Plaintiff.
`
`10. At no point throughout the duration of the Parties' communications and their
`
`active efforts to comply with the Stipulated Preliminary Injunction has the
`
`Plaintiff made any request for Defendants to file an Answer to Plaintiff’s
`
`Complaint.
`
`11. Default was not culpable or willful, as Defendants did not file an Answer
`
`due to the sincere belief that the Parties would promptly resolve this
`
`matter outside of the court system.
`
`12. There will be no prejudice to Plaintiff from setting aside the Default given the
`
`relatively short period of time between service of the Verified Complaint upon
`
`Defendants and the filing of Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Default and
`
`Page 3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 4 of 25
`
`Answer.
`
`13. Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint on April 24, 2024, and perfected service
`
`upon Defendants on April 25, 2024. Defendants’ Answer was due on May 16,
`
`2024. Plaintiff moved for entry of Default on May 22, 2024, only Seven (7) days
`
`after the deadline for Defendants’ Answer. Accordingly, Plaintiff will not be
`
`prejudiced from Defendants’ being permitted to set aside Default and file its
`
`Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint at this time as the time elapsed since the filing
`
`of the Complaint and the service of the action has been relatively brief, thus
`
`minimizing any potential adverse effects on the Plaintiff's case. See Catalina
`
`Worldwide, LLC v. Info. and Infrastructure Techs., Inc., No. 1:22-CV-02757-
`
`JPB, 2023 WL 346656 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 19, 2023). (finding “good cause” to set
`
`aside default where Plaintiff had not been prejudiced by Defendant filing its
`
`answer 12 days after the deadline).
`
`14. Defendant has meritorious defenses to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`15. Defendants’ tiles and mosaics did not infringe on the copyrights held by
`
`Plaintiff because the Defendants’ tiles and mosaics are not substantially similar
`
`to those designed by the Plaintiff. Under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101
`
`et seq, the Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Defendants copied the protected
`
`elements of a copyrighted work by showing that the works would be
`
`substantially similar to a lay observer. Architects Collective v. Pucciano &
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 5 of 25
`
`Eng., Inc., 247 F. Supp. 3d 1322 (N.D. Ga. 2017).
`
`16. The tiles and mosaics manufactured by Defendants would not be substantially
`
`similar to Plaintiff’s tiles in the eyes of a lay observer. This is because although
`
`the Defendants and Plaintiff’s tiles and mosaics use common elements, the
`
`configuration and arrangement of these elements is not substantially similar,
`
`and thus, the Defendants tiles do not infringe on the copyright held by the
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`17. To the extent that Defendants are found to be liable for copyright infringement
`
`of the Plaintiff’s works, any and all alleged infringement on the part of
`
`Defendants was not done “willfully” as to enhance the actual damages award
`
`to the Plaintiff based upon the known facts of this case.
`
`18. Defendants’ tiles and mosaics do not violate the Georgia Uniform Deceptive
`
`Trade Practices Act because they sold their own tiles fabricated by them and
`
`did not pass off their tiles or mosaics as those fabricated by Plaintiff, as required
`
`under O.C.G.A. § 10–1–370(a)(1).
`
`19. Defendants did not cause a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding
`
`concerning the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of their tiles and
`
`mosaics, as required under O.C.G.A. § 10–1–370(a)(2), because they never
`
`actively or passively held out their products as being sourced from, sponsored
`
`by, approved by, or certified by Plaintiff.
`
`Page 5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 6 of 25
`
`20. Defendants did not cause a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as
`
`to affiliation, connection, or association with certification of another, as under
`
`O.C.G.A. § 10–1–370(a)(3), because they never actively or passively held
`
`themselves out as being affiliated, connected, or associated with Plaintiff.
`
`21. Defendants also did not engage in other conduct which would create a
`
`likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding regarding the nature of their
`
`product with Plaintiff’s products, as required under O.C.G.A. § 10–1–
`
`370(a)(4). Consequently, Plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction on this issue.
`
`22. Plaintiff is also not entitled to attorney’s fees on this issue because Defendants
`
`did not willfully or intentionally engage in any trade practices, they knew to be
`
`deceptive, as required under O.C.G.A. § 10–1–373(b)(2).
`
`23. Defendants have not been unjustly enriched under Georgia common law
`
`because they have not used and sold the designs created by Plaintiff. As a result,
`
`they have not obtained any benefit from Plaintiff’s design and have not been
`
`unjustly enriched.
`
`24. Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees from Defendants in this matter because
`
`Defendants have not acted in bad faith, been stubbornly litigious, or caused
`
`Plaintiff unnecessary trouble or expense.
`
`25. Defendants announce its readiness to proceed instanter as shown by the
`
`Answer, attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” and moves this Court for Leave to
`
`Page 6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 7 of 25
`
`file Defendants’ Answer as part of the relief requested herein.
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully prays that its Motion To Set Aside
`
`Default be granted and that the Answer, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, be accepted
`
`for filing as part of the relief requested herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Signature on Following Page)
`
`Page 7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 8 of 25
`
`Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of May 2024.
`
`KPPB LAW
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Roy Banerjee
`Roy A. Banerjee, Esq.
`Georgia Bar No. 035917
`
`Kumar, Prabhu, Patel & Banerjee, LLC
`One Lakeside Commons, Suite 800
`990 Hammond Drive
`Atlanta, Georgia 30328
`Phone: (678) 443-2220
`Fax: (678) 443-2230
`rbanerjee@kppblaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Shinex Mosaics
`Global, Shinex Mosaics USA, Inex
`Industries, Ltd, and Sachin Palsokar
`
`
`LR 7.1(D) CERTIFICATE
`
`This is to certify that the within and foregoing has been prepared with one of
`
`the fonts and point selections approved by the Court in LR 5.1(C): Times New
`
`Roman, 14 point.
`
`
`
`KPPB LAW
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Roy Banerjee
`Roy A. Banerjee, Esq.
`Georgia Bar No. 035917
`rbanerjee@kppblaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Shinex
`Mosaics Global, Shinex Mosaics
`USA, Inex Industries, Ltd, and Sachin
`Palsokar
`
`Page 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 9 of 25
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SICIS, s.r.l.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`
`SHINEX MOSAICS GLOBAL, SHINEX
`MOSAICS USA, INEX INDUSTRIES,
`LTD, SACHIN PALSOKAR, and JOHN
`DOES 1-5,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`1:24-cv-1772-TWT
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificate of Service
`
`I hereby certify that on May 23, 2024, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`
`was served electronically with the Clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system,
`
`which will send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KPPB LAW
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Roy Banerjee
`Roy A. Banerjee, Esq.
`Georgia Bar No. 035917
`rbanerjee@kppblaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Shinex
`Mosaics Global, Shinex Mosaics
`USA, Inex Industries, Ltd, and Sachin
`Palsokar
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 10 of 25
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 11 of 25
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`1:24-cv-1772-TWT
`
`SICIS, s.r.l.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` v.
`
`
`SHINEX MOSAICS GLOBAL, SHINEX
`MOSAICS USA, INEX INDUSTRIES,
`LTD, SACHIN PALSOKAR, and JOHN
`DOES 1-5,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`ANSWER AND DEFENSES
`
`
`
`COMES NOW, DEFENDANTS SHINEX MOSAICS GLOBAL, SHINEX
`
`MOSAICS USA, INEX INDUSTRIES LTD., and SACHIN PALSOKAR, and for
`
`their answer show the court as follows:
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`
`Defendants’ tiles and mosaics did not infringe on the copyrights held by
`
`Plaintiff because the Defendants’ tiles and mosaics are not substantially similar to
`
`those designed by the Plaintiff. Under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq,
`
`the Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Defendants copied the protected elements of
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 12 of 25
`
`a copyrighted work by showing that the works would be substantially similar to a
`
`lay observer. Architects Collective v. Pucciano & Eng., Inc., 247 F. Supp. 3d 1322
`
`(N.D. Ga. 2017). The tiles and mosaics manufactured by Defendants would not be
`
`substantially similar to Plaintiff’s tiles in the eyes of a lay observer. This is because
`
`although the Defendants and Plaintiff’s tiles and mosaics use common elements, the
`
`configuration and arrangement of these elements is not substantially similar, and
`
`thus, the Defendants tiles do not infringe on the copyright held by the Plaintiffs.
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`
`Defendants’ tiles and mosaics do not violate the Georgia Uniform Deceptive
`
`Trade Practices Act because they sold their own tiles fabricated by them and did not
`
`pass off their tiles or mosaics as those fabricated by Plaintiff, as required under
`
`O.C.G.A. § 10–1–370(a)(1). Defendants did not cause a likelihood of confusion or
`
`misunderstanding concerning the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of
`
`their tiles and mosaics, as required under O.C.G.A. § 10–1–370(a)(2), because they
`
`never actively or passively held out their products as being sourced from, sponsored
`
`by, approved by, or certified by Plaintiff. Defendants did not cause a likelihood of
`
`confusion or of misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with
`
`certification of another, as under O.C.G.A. § 10–1–370(a)(3), because they never
`
`actively or passively held themselves out as being affiliated, connected, or associated
`
`with Plaintiff. Defendants also did not engage in other conduct which would create
`Page 2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 13 of 25
`
`a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding regarding the nature of their product
`
`with Plaintiff’s products, as required under O.C.G.A. § 10–1–370(a)(4).
`
`Consequently, Plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction on this issue. Plaintiff is also
`
`not entitled to attorney’s fees on this issue because Defendants did not willfully or
`
`intentionally engage in any trade practices, they knew to be deceptive, as required
`
`under O.C.G.A. § 10–1–373(b)(2).
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`
`Defendants have not been unjustly enriched under Georgia common law
`
`because they have not used and sold the designs created by Plaintiff. As a result,
`
`they have not obtained any benefit from Plaintiff’s design and have not been unjustly
`
`enriched.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`
`Plaintiff is not entitled to attorney’s fees from Defendants in this matter
`
`because Defendants have not acted in bad faith, been stubbornly litigious, or caused
`
`Plaintiff unnecessary trouble or expense. In fact, Defendants’ counsel proactively
`
`reached out to Plaintiff’s counsel on multiple occasions to negotiate a settlement
`
`related to this issue or to otherwise solve this issue outside the justice system. As a
`
`result, Plaintiff is not entitled to, and should not be awarded, attorney’s fees in this
`
`matter.
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 14 of 25
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`
`To the extent that Defendants are found to be liable for copyright infringement
`
`of the Plaintiff’s works, any and all alleged infringement on the part of Defendants
`
`was not done “willfully” as to enhance the actual damages award to the Plaintiff
`
`based upon the known facts of this case.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION, PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny this allegation.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants admit that two companies in this case are Indian but deny the
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Denied.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny this allegation.
`
`Admit.
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 15 of 25
`
`Denied.
`
`Admit.
`
`Admit.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Defendants admit that the Plaintiffs have alleged claims for violation of the
`
`Copyright Act which arise under federal law but deny the remaining allegations
`
`contained in this paragraph.
`
`
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 16 of 25
`
`Defendants admit that they conduct some business in Georgia but deny the
`
`remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.
`
`13.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 17 of 25
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff SICIS and its copyrighted mosaic designs
`
`14.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny this allegation.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny this allegation.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny this allegation.
`
`17.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny this allegation.
`
`18.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny this allegation.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny this allegation.
`
`20.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny this allegation.
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 18 of 25
`
`
`
`B. The Shinex Defendants and their wrongful copying
`
`21.
`
`Defendants admit that Shinex Global and Inex are based out of Nagpur,
`
`India, and that they manufacture tiles and glass mosaics. Defendants deny the
`
`remaining allegations in this paragraph.
`
`Admit.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 19 of 25
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`Defendants admit that Plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to Defendants
`
`notifying them of the alleged infringement, but deny the remaining allegations
`
`contained in this paragraph.
`
`33.
`
`Defendants admit that some portions of their websites are down, but deny
`
`the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 20 of 25
`
`COUNT 1: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Denied.
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny this allegation.
`
`36.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny this allegation.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 21 of 25
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`COUNT II: VIOLATION OF GEORGIA UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE
`PRACTICES ACT (O.C.G.A. § 10–1–370)
`43.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 22 of 25
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`49.
`
`50.
`
`COUNT III: UNJUST ENRICHMENT UNDER GEORGIA COMMON LAW
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`51.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants are without knowledge sufficient to admit or deny this allegation.
`
`Denied.
`
`54.
`
`55.
`
`Defendants admit they have provided no benefit to SICIS but deny that they were
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 23 of 25
`
`under any obligation to do so.
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`COUNT IV: ATTORNEY FEES UNDER O.C.G.A. § 13–6–11
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`Denied.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`All Paragraphs not otherwise admitted by Defendant are hereby denied by
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 24 of 25
`
`WHEREFORE, Defendant prays as follows:
`
`a) That each of Plaintiff’s counts against Defendants be dismissed with
`
`prejudice;
`
`b) That judgment be entered in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff
`
`on each of Plaintiff’s counts against Defendants;
`
`c) That all costs of this action be taxed against Plaintiff;
`
`d) That all attorneys’ fees incurred by Defendants in defending against
`
`this action be taxed against Plaintiff; and
`
`That this Court award such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(Signature on Following Page)
`
`Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-01772-TWT Document 18 Filed 05/23/24 Page 25 of 25
`
`Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of May 2024.
`
`KPPB LAW
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Roy Banerjee
`Roy A. Banerjee, Esq.
`Georgia Bar No. 035917
`
`Kumar, Prabhu, Patel & Banerjee, LLC
`One Lakeside Commons, Suite 800
`990 Hammond Drive
`Atlanta, Georgia 30328
`Phone: (678) 443-2220
`Fax: (678) 443-2230
`rbanerjee@kppblaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Shinex Mosaics
`Global, Shinex Mosaics USA, Inex
`Industries, Ltd, and Sachin Palsokar
`
`LR 7.1(D) CERTIFICATE
`
`This is to certify that the within and foregoing has been prepared with one of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the fonts and point selections approved by the Court in LR 5.1(C): Times New
`
`Roman, 14 point.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KPPB LAW
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Roy Banerjee
`Roy A. Banerjee, Esq.
`Georgia Bar No. 035917
`rbanerjee@kppblaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants Shinex Mosaics
`Global, Shinex Mosaics USA, Inex
`Industries, Ltd, and Sachin Palsokar
`
`Page 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