Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 1 of 16
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`- ---------------- - --------------------x
`
`MATILDE GATTONI,
`
`- against-
`
`TIBI, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff ,
`
`16 Civ. 7527
`OPINION
`
`(RWS)
`
`Defendant .
`
`--------------------------------------x
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`LIEBOWITZ LAW FIRM PLLC
`11 Sunrise Plaza , Suite 301
`Va ll ey Stream, NY 11580
`By : Richard Liebowitz, Esq .
`Yekaterina Tsyvkin, Esq.
`
`Attorney for Defendant
`
`LAW OFFICE OF GORDON E.R. TROY, PC
`PO Box 1180
`Shelburne , VT 05445
`By : Gordon E . R. Troy , Esq.
`
`\l;~~ls:-~:;-= -=--=:-,:1
`fl.ECTRO
`~ .
`'. . .. _, F\\ f .
`\
`uOC #: _ ----~·~r:r- 1
`\DATE Fll .~-·.:: .::?I.Q-..:±--=±=::_,
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`- ---------------- - --------------------x
`
`MATILDE GATTONI,
`
`- against-
`
`TIBI, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff ,
`
`16 Civ. 7527
`OPINION
`
`(RWS)
`
`Defendant .
`
`--------------------------------------x
`
`A P P E A R A N C E S:
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`LIEBOWITZ LAW FIRM PLLC
`11 Sunrise Plaza , Suite 301
`Va ll ey Stream, NY 11580
`By : Richard Liebowitz, Esq .
`Yekaterina Tsyvkin, Esq.
`
`Attorney for Defendant
`
`LAW OFFICE OF GORDON E.R. TROY, PC
`PO Box 1180
`Shelburne , VT 05445
`By : Gordon E . R. Troy , Esq.
`
`\l;~~ls:-~:;-= -=--=:-,:1
`fl.ECTRO
`~ .
`'. . .. _, F\\ f .
`\
`uOC #: _ ----~·~r:r- 1
`\DATE Fll .~-·.:: .::?I.Q-..:±--=±=::_,
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 2 of 16
`
`Sweet , D.J .
`
`Defendant Tibi , LLC ("Tibi " or the "Defendant") has
`
`moved to dismiss the complaint of p l aintiff Matilde Gattoni
`
`("Gattoni " or the "Plaintiff " ) pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) of the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As set forth below, the motion
`
`is denied in part and granted in part.
`
`I .
`
`Prior Proceedings
`
`Gattoni filed her complaint (the " Complaint " ) against
`
`Tibi on September 27 , 2016 , alleging copyright infringement
`
`under Section 501 of the Copyright Act and removal and/or
`
`alteration of copyright management information under Section
`
`1202(b) of the Digital Mil l ennium Copyright Act . The instant
`
`motion was filed on October 27, 2016 , and the motion was marked
`
`fully submitted on December 15 , 2016.
`
`II .
`
`The Facts
`
`The facts as set forth below are drawn from the
`
`Pl aintiff's Comp l aint . They are taken as true for purposes of
`
`the motion to dismiss .
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 3 of 16
`
`Gattoni, a professional photojournalist, is the author
`
`of a photograph of a woman in a long dress walking down an empty
`
`street near a building with a colorful fa9ade in Essaouira,
`
`Morocco (the "Photograph") . Compl.
`
`':lI':lI 5, 7, 9 & Ex. A. On or
`
`about August 26, 2 016, Gattoni posted the Photograph on her
`
`Instagram page, @matildegattoni. Id. ':lI 8 & Ex. B. The caption to
`
`the Photograph included the phrase "(c) Matilde Gattoni
`
`Photography, 2016, All rights reserved." Id. Ex. B. The
`
`Photograph has a pending United States copyright registration
`
`number of 1-4017865036. Id. ':lI 9 & Ex. C.
`
`Tibi, a clothing corporation with a place of business
`
`at 120 Wooster Street, New York, New York 10012, operates the
`
`Instagram page @Tibi. Id. ':lI 6. On or about September 20 , 2016 ,
`
`Tibi copied the Photograph, cropped it so that only the colorfu l
`
`fa9ade of the building remained, and posted the image to Tibi's
`
`Instagram page. Id. ':lI 11 & Ex. D. The post was accompanied by
`
`the caption "Palette," an image of a camera, a colon , and a
`
`hyperlinked reference to Gattoni's Instagram page, as shown
`
`below . Id. Ex. D.
`
`tlbl Palette.
`
`matUdegattonl
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 4 of 16
`
`Tibi did not l ice n se t h e Photograph f r om Gattoni for
`
`its I nstagram socia l media page , nor d i d Ti bi acqui re Gattoni ' s
`
`permission or consent to publ i sh the Photograph on its Instagram
`
`page pr i or to doing so . Id. ~ 1 2 .
`
`III.
`
`The Applicable Standards
`
`The Rule 12(b) (6) standard requires that a comp l a i nt
`
`plead sufficient facts to state a c l aim u pon which relief can be
`
`granted . Ashcro ft v . Iqbal , 556 U. S . 662 , 677 - 78 (2009) ; Bell
`
`Atl . Corp . v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544 , 570 (2007) . On a mo tion to
`
`dismiss under Fed. R. Ci v . P 12(b) (6) , all factual a l legations
`
`in th e compla i nt are accepted as true , and al l reasonable
`
`inferences are drawn in the plaintiff ' s favor . Litt l ejohn v .
`
`City of N . Y. , 795 F . 3d 297 , 306 (2d Cir . 2015) ; Mills v. Polar
`
`Molecular Corp ., 1 2 F . 3d 1170 , 1174 (2d Ci r . 1993). However , " a
`
`pla i ntiff ' s obl i gation to provi de the grounds of h i s entitlement
`
`t o relief requires more than labe l s and conclusions ." Twombly,
`
`550 U. S . at 555 (quotation marks omi tted) . A compla i nt must
`
`contain " s u ffic i ent factua l matter , accepted as tru e ,
`
`t o
`
`' state
`
`a c l aim to re l ief that i s plausib l e o n
`
`i ts face .' " Iqbal , 556
`
`U. S . at 663 (quoting Twombly , 550 U. S . at 570) .
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 5 of 16
`
`A claim is facially plausible when "the plaintiff
`
`pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
`
`reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
`
`misconduct alleged." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). In
`
`other words, the factual allegations must "possess enough heft
`
`to show that the pleader is entitled to relief." Twombly, 550
`
`U.S. at 557 (internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Additionally, while "a plaintiff may plead facts
`
`alleged upon information and belief 'where the belief is based
`
`on factual information that makes the inference of culpability
`
`plausible,' such allegations must be 'accompanied by a statement
`
`o f the facts upon which the belief is founded.'" Munoz-Nagel v.
`
`Guess, Inc., No. 12-1312, 2013 WL 1809772, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.
`
`30, 2013)
`
`(quoting Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110,
`
`120 (2d Cir. 2010)) and Prince v. Madison Square Garden, 427 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 372, 384 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Williams v.
`
`Calderoni, No. 11-3020, 2012 WL 691832, *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1,
`
`2012) . The pleadings, h owever , "must conta in something more than
`
`. a statement of facts that merely creates a suspicion [of]
`
`a legally cognizable right of action." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 6 of 16
`
`(quoting 5 CHARLES ALAN WRI GHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER , FEDERAL PRACTICE AND
`
`PROCEDURE § 1216 (3d ed. 2004)) .
`
`IV.
`
`The Motion to Dismiss the Claim for Copyright Infringement
`is Granted
`
`To state a claim for copyright infringement under the
`
`Copyright Act , 17 U.S.C. §§ 1 01 et seq. , a plaintiff must allege
`
`"(1) which original works are the subject of the copyright
`
`claim;
`
`(2) that the plaintiff owns the copyrights in those
`
`works;
`
`(3) that the copyrights have been registered in
`
`accordance with the statute ; and (4) by what acts during what
`
`time the defendant infringed the copyright ." Palatkevich v.
`
`Choupak , Nos. 12-cv- 1681(CM) , 12-cv-1682
`
`(CM) , 2014 WL 1509 236 ,
`
`at *6 (S . D. N. Y. Jan. 24, 2014) (internal quotation marks and
`
`citations omitted). Gattoni has met the first two pr ongs of the
`
`test : she has identified the Photograph as the original work
`
`that is the subject of the instant copyright claim, and she has
`
`alleged that she owns the copyright in the Photograph . She has
`
`als o met the fourth prong by alleging that Tibi infringed the
`
`copyright by posting a cropped version of the Photograph on its
`
`Instagram page without license or consent. Gattoni has not ,
`
`h owever , met the third prong of the test.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 7 of 16
`
`The third prong, demonstrating a valid copyright
`
`registration, captures the statutory requirement of Section
`
`411(a) of the Copyright Act, which provides in relevant part
`
`that "no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any
`
`United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or
`
`registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance
`
`with this title." 17 U.S.C. § 411; see also 17 U.S.C. § 501. In
`
`other words, "the Copyright Act [] requires copyright holders to
`
`register their works before suing for copyright infringement."
`
`Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 157 (2010).
`
`Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Reed
`
`Elsevier, the Second Circuit had held that failure to register a
`
`work was a defect that deprived the federal courts of
`
`jurisdiction over an infringement action. See, e.g., In re
`
`Literary Works in Electronic Databases Copyright Litig., 509
`
`F.3d 116, 121 (2d Cir. 2007), rev'd sub nom. Reed Elsevier, 559
`
`U.S. at 166. "[P]ost-Reed Elsevier, registration is an element
`
`of an infringement claim, rather than a jurisdictional bar."
`
`Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IAC/ InteractiveCorp, 606 F.3d 612, 615
`
`(9th Cir. 2010)); see also K-Beech, Inc. v. Does 1-29, No. CV
`
`11-3331 JTB ETB, 2011 WL 4401933, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 19,
`
`2011)
`
`("While failure to register a work does not deprive a
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 8 of 16
`
`federal court of jurisdiction over an action for infringement,
`
`valid registration is an element of an infringement claim .")
`
`The Supreme Court did not answer the question of whether
`
`district courts should dismiss infringement actions when the
`
`relevant work is not registered. Id. at 171 ("We
`
`.
`
`decline
`
`to address whether§ 411(a)'s registration requirement is a
`
`mandatory precondition to suit that .
`
`. district courts may or
`
`should enforce sua sponte by dismissing copyright infringement
`
`claims involving unregistered works.").
`
`Gattoni's Compla int alleges that the Photograph is the
`
`subject of an application for a copyright registration and that
`
`a copyright registration number is "pending." See Compl.
`
`<JI 9.
`
`Exhibit C to the Compla int clearly shows an "appli cation, "
`
`rather than a certificate of registration, for the Photograph.
`
`Courts are split over the interpretation of the pre(cid:173)
`
`suit registration requirement set forth in§ 411(a) -
`
`that is,
`
`whether a work qualifies as registered under the statute when an
`
`application for copyright is pending. See Patrick Collins, Inc.
`
`v. Doe, 843 F. Supp. 2d 565, 568
`
`(E .D. Pa. 2011) (discussing the
`
`split among circuits and within copyright law treatises); see
`
`also Cosmetic Ideas, 606 F.3d 612 at 615-16 (cata loging cases
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 9 of 16
`
`and noting circuit split). Some courts have taken an
`
`"'application approach,' under which a pending copyright
`
`registration application is sufficient to satisfy§ 411(a) ,"
`
`while others have taken a "'registration approach,' under which
`
`a certificate of registration issued by the Copyright Off ice is
`
`a prerequisite to suit." N. Jersey Media Grp. Inc. v. Sasson,
`
`No. CIV. 2 :1 2 - 3568 WJM, 2013 WL 74237, at *3 (D.N.J. Jan. 4,
`
`2013)
`
`(adopting the "registration approach" and holding that
`
`"until [the plaintiff] holds a certificate of copyright
`
`registration .
`
`[it] cannot state a prima facie claim of
`
`copyright infringement for any of those works " ) ; see also
`
`Patrick Collins , 843 F. Supp. 2d at 570 ("Congress chose the
`
`registration approach, and we must abide by that decision.").
`
`Although the Second Circuit has not addressed this
`
`specific question, "[d]istrict courts in the Second Circuit
`
`require that a plaintiff 'either hold a valid copyright
`
`registration or have applied and been refused a registration as
`
`a prerequisite to filing a civi l claim .'" Lumetrics, Inc. v .
`
`Blalock, 23 F. Supp. 3d 138, 14 3
`
`(W .D.N.Y. 2014) (citing Muench
`
`Photography, Inc. v. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publ'g, Co ., No.
`
`09 CV 2669(LAP), 2012 WL 1021535, at *2
`
`(S .D.N.Y. Mar. 26 ,
`
`2012)) ; see also Accurate Grading Quality Assurance, Inc. v.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 10 of 16
`
`Thorpe, No. 12 Civ . 1343(ALC), 2013 WL 1234836, at *7
`
`(S .D.N. Y.
`
`Mar . 2 6 , 2 013)
`
`("While not a strictly jurisdictional
`
`requirement, section .
`
`411(a) nonetheless requires copyright
`
`registration as a precondition to
`
`. copyright claims ." ) ;
`
`Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. 11 Civ . 1416(JSR), 2011
`
`WL 4916299, at *2
`
`(S .D. N.Y . Oct . 13, 2011)
`
`(" The mere pendency
`
`of an application is .
`
`. insuffi cient to satisfy section 411 's
`
`registration requirement, which the Supreme Court has determined
`
`to be an absolute ' precondition '
`
`to suit."); Sci. Computing
`
`Assocs., Inc. v . Warnes, No. 07-CV-6351 , 2011 WL 1327398, at *l ,
`
`(W.D . N. Y. Apr . 5 , 2011) (dismissing copyright infringement claim
`
`where defendant conceded it did not meet the registration
`
`requirement under§ 411(a)); K- Beech, Inc . v . Does 1-29, No . CV
`
`11-3331(JTB) (ETB) , 2011 WL 4401933, at *1 (E.D . N.Y. Sept . 19 ,
`
`2010)
`
`("[ SJ ubmiss i on of an application for copyright
`
`registration does not satisfy the registration precondition o f §
`
`411 (a). " ) .
`
`Because Gattoni has alleged on l y that the registration
`
`for the allegedly infringed film is pending, and because no
`
`application has been made by Gattoni to amend the Comp lai nt if
`
`and when the Photograph became registered, Gattoni has not
`
`properly pled the pre-requisite element of a copyright
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 11 of 16
`
`infringement claim, and the Complaint 's cause of action for
`
`copyright infringement necessarily fails to state a claim . The
`
`Defendant's motion to dismiss the copyright infringement claim
`
`is granted without prejudice. See Membler.com LLC v. Barber, No.
`
`12-CV-4941 JS GR, 2013 WL 5348546, at *5
`
`(E .D.N. Y. Sept. 23,
`
`2013)
`
`(expla ining that Pyatt v. Raymond, 462 F. App'x 22 (2d
`
`Cir. 2012) now stands for the proposition that post-commencement
`
`registrations will not automatically be read into the complaint
`
`and the plaintiff should seek amendment); Raymond J. Dowd,
`
`Copyright Litigation Handbook§ 7:1 (2d ed. 2012)
`
`("[I]f a
`
`plaintiff registers copyrights after the filing of a complaint
`
`but does n o t supplement the compla int pursuant to Rule 15(d) of
`
`the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may dismiss the
`
`case ." ) ; Patry on Copyright§ 19:4 (2013)
`
`("Where plaintiff has
`
`received registrations subsequent to the filing of the
`
`complaint, the complaint should be amended.").
`
`Having found that this claim is dismissed because
`
`Gattoni has not yet alleged a val id copyright registration, the
`
`Court declines to address the parties' arguments on judi c ial
`
`notice of Instagram's Terms of Service and whether Tibi
`
`qualifies as a third-party beneficiary of any license conferred
`
`by Instagram's Terms of Service at this time.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 12 of 16
`
`V.
`
`The Motion to Dismiss the Claim for Removal of Copyright
`Management Information is Denied
`
`The Plaintiff's second claim for relief alleges that
`
`the conduct of Tibi violates 17 U.S.C . § 1202(b) of the Digita l
`
`Millennium Copyright Act
`
`("DMCA"). Compl . ~~ 21 - 25 . Unlike for a
`
`copyright infringement claim , the fact that an application for
`
`copyright is pending is not a bar to a DMCA action . See Playboy
`
`Enterprises Int ' l Inc . v . Mediatakeout . com LLC, No. 15 CIV . 7053
`
`(PAE) , 2016 WL 1023321 , at *5 (S.D . N. Y. Mar . 8 , 20 16) ;
`
`I . M.S.
`
`Inquiry Mgmt. Sys . , Ltd. v. Berkshire Info . Sys . , Inc . , 307 F .
`
`Supp . 2d 521, 531 n.9 (S.D.N . Y. 2004)
`
`(" [ P ] laintiff's failure to
`
`register its copyrighted work is not a bar to a DMCA action. " );
`
`Med . Broadcasting Co . v . Flaiz, No . Civ . A . 02-8554 , 2003 WL
`
`22838094, at * 3
`
`(E . D. Pa. Nov . 25, 2003)
`
`("While a copyright
`
`registration is a prerequisite under 17 U. S.C. § 4ll(a) for an
`
`action for copyright infringement , claims under the DMCA ,
`
`however , are simply not copyright infringement claims and are
`
`separate and distinct from the latter " ).
`
`" The DMCA prohibits , among other things ,
`
`'intentionally remov[ing] or alter[ing] any copyr i ght management
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 13 of 16
`
`information.'" Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc., 754 F.3d
`
`95 , 107 (2d Cir. 2014)
`
`(quoting 17 U.S.C . § 1202(b)) (alteration
`
`in the original). Copyright management information ("CMI") also
`
`includes "[t]he title and other information identifying the
`
`work," and "[t]he name of , and other identifying information
`
`about, the author of a work." 17 U.S . C. § 1202(c); see Playboy
`
`Enterprises , 2016 WL 1023321, at *5 . To establish a violation
`
`under subsection 1202(b), a plaintiff must show "(1) the
`
`existence of CMI on the [infringed work];
`
`(2) removal and/or
`
`alteration of that information; and (3) that the removal and/or
`
`alteration was done intentionally." BanxCorp v. Costco Wholesale
`
`Corp. , 723 F . Supp. 2d 596, 609 (S.D.N . Y. 2010) (collecting
`
`cases).
`
`Gattoni alleges that Tibi, without authorization,
`
`"intentionally and knowingly removed copyright management
`
`information" and that Tibi "knew, or should have known, that
`
`such falsification, alteration and/or removal of said copyright
`
`management information would induce, enable, facilitate, or
`
`conceal their infringement of Plaintiff's copyright in the
`
`Photograph." Compl. ~ 22, 25. Gattoni states that the CMI that
`
`existed was information "identifying Plaintiff as the owner of
`
`the Photograph ." Compl. ~ 22. The Defendant contends that these
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 14 of 16
`
`allegations are conclusory, and that therefore Gattoni's
`
`allegations are insufficient to meet the 12(b) (6) threshold.
`
`"Although Plaintiff's allegations in the Complaint are
`
`relatively sparse," Gattoni has sufficiently alleged the
`
`existence of CMI and its intentional removal or alteration by
`
`Tibi to state a claim under subsection 1202(b) of the DMCA.
`
`Devocean Jewelry LLC v. Associated Newspapers Ltd., No. 16-CV-
`
`2150
`
`(KMW), 2016 WL 6135662, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2016). Her
`
`Complaint is bolstered by exhibits showing that Tibi's post
`
`omitted the copyright notice "(c) Matilde Gattoni Photography,
`
`2016, All rights reserved" that Gattoni had included with her
`
`post. Compl. Exs. B & D; see Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev.,
`
`Inc., 754 F.3d 95, 107 (2d Cir. 2014) (highlighting "the
`
`familiar (c) copyright notice" as an example of CMI); Fischer v.
`
`Fo rrest, No. 14 CIV. 1304 PAE, 2015 WL 195822, at *8 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`Jan. 13, 2015 (citing Ban x Corp, 723 F. Supp. 2d at 610, for the
`
`proposition that "[p]roviding an actual example of the allegedly
`
`inf ringing [work] is obviously more than a conclusory
`
`allegation").
`
`Certainly, the presence of a credit "tag" that
`
`hyperlinks to Gattoni's Instagram page in Exhibit D "undermines
`
`the strength of Plaintiff's allegations regarding Defendant's
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 15 of 16
`
`intent." Devocean Jewelry, 2016 WL 6135662, at *2 (noting that
`
`the inclusion of copyright information by the Defendant "even
`
`[though] differ[ent] in appearance from the information
`
`originally included by the Plaintiff" diminished the Plaintiff's
`
`argument on the Defendant's intent). However, the Defendant
`
`cites no authorities that "tagging " the author of a Photograph
`
`conclusively means the Defendant lacks the required scienter
`
`under the DMCA. Further, the Court must draw all reasonable
`
`inferences in Gattoni's favor at this stage. Accordingly, the
`
`motion to dismiss Gattoni's section 1202(b) claim is denied. See
`
`In re DDAVP Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig., 585 F. 3d 677 , 693
`
`(2d Cir. 2009) (courts must be "lenient in allowing scienter
`
`issues .
`
`. to survive motions to dismiss") .
`
`VI. Conclusion
`
`Based upon the conclusions set forth above, the
`
`Defendant's motion is denied in part and granted in part. The
`
`Complaint 's copyright infringement cla im is dismissed without
`
`prejudice. The Plaintiff is granted leave to amend the Complaint
`
`within 60 days showing e ither a valid copyright registration of
`
`the Photograph or rejection of her copyright registration
`
`application.
`
`14
`
`
`
`' . . ,.
`
`Case 1:16-cv-07527-RWS Document 18 Filed 05/25/17 Page 16 of 16
`
`I t is so ordered .
`
`New York, NY
`May i,:;,-2017
`
`15
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
