throbber
Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 1 of 17
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`
`
`LEGO SYSTEM A/S,
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 15-cv-00823-VLB
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`RUBICON COMMUNICATIONS, LP DBA
`SMALLWORKS
`
`
`
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S ANSWER, DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Defendant Rubicon Communications, LLC (“Rubicon”) and SmallWorks,
`
`LLC (“SmallWorks”) for their Answer to the Complaint for Patent Infringement of
`
`Plaintiff Lego System A/S (“Lego”) respond as follows. Every allegation not
`
`expressly admitted herein is denied.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`Rubicon and SmallWorks separately lack knowledge or information
`
`1.
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 1, and
`
`therefore separately deny all allegations of Paragraph 1.
`
`2.
`
`Rubicon Communications, LP dba SmallWorks does not exist. There
`
`are now two separate companies: Rubicon Communications, LLC and SmallWorks,
`
`LLC. Rubicon no longer engages in any of the alleged infringing activities.
`
`Rubicon also no longer does business as SmallWorks. Current manufacturing,
`
`offering for sale, and sales of the accused products are done solely by SmallWorks,
`
`which should be the only defendant entity in this lawsuit.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 2 of 17
`
`3.
`
`Rubicon and SmallWorks separately admit that they have done a very
`
`small amount of business in the state of Connecticut, but separately deny the
`
`remainder of Paragraph 3.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`Separately Admitted.
`
`Rubicon and SmallWorks separately admit that the Court has personal
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`jurisdiction over the subject matter, but separately deny the remainder of
`
`Paragraph 5.
`
`6.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`THE ASSERTED PATENTS
`
`Rubicon and SmallWorks separately lack knowledge or information
`
`7.
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 7, and
`
`therefore separately deny all allegations of Paragraph 7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Separately admitted.
`
`Separately admitted.
`
`Separately admitted.
`
`Separately admitted.
`
`12. Rubicon and SmallWorks separately admit that an assignment
`
`document was filed with the USPTO, but separately lack knowledge or information
`
`sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph
`
`12, and therefore separately deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 12.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 3 of 17
`
`DEFENDANT’S [ALLEGED] INFRINGING ACTS
`
`13.
`
`SmallWorks admits that it makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale in the
`
`United States cases for the iPhone 4/4S, the iPhone 5/5S, iPod Touch 4th
`
`generation, and iPad mini, which allow users to connect bricks and other building
`
`elements to the cases, including Lego bricks, but denies the remainder of
`
`Paragraph 13. Rubicon denies that the allegations in Paragraph 13 are applicable
`
`to it.
`
`14.
`
`SmallWorks admits that it operates www.smallworks.com. Rubicon
`
`denies that the allegations in Paragraph 14 are applicable to it.
`
`15.
`
`SmallWorks admits that it offers cases for the iPhone 4/4S, the iPhone
`
`5/5S, iPod Touch 4th generation, and iPad mini. Rubicon denies that the allegations
`
`in Paragraph 15 are applicable to it.
`
`16.
`
`SmallWorks admits that Lego has partially quoted parts of sentences
`
`appearing on the SmallWorks website in Paragraph 16 of the Complaint.
`
`17. Admitted by SmallWorks. Rubicon denies that the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 17 are applicable to it.
`
`18.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Separately admitted.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`SmallWorks and Rubicon separately admit that they have previous
`
`knowledge of the ‘191 Patent and ‘892 Patent but separately deny that they infringe
`
`those patents.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 4 of 17
`
`COUNT I – [ALLEGED] INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘191 PATENT
`
`21. Rubicon and SmallWorks separately restate and incorporate by
`
`reference their responses to paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully stated herein.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`
`
`COUNT II – [ALLEGED] INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘892 PATENT
`
`28. Rubicon and SmallWorks separately restate and incorporate by
`
`reference their responses to paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully stated herein.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`34.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`
`COUNT III – [ALLEGED] INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘085 PATENT
`
`35. Rubicon and SmallWorks separately restate and incorporate by
`
`reference their responses to paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully stated herein.
`
`36.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 5 of 17
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`41.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`COUNT IV – [ALLEGED] INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘066 PATENT
`
`42. Rubicon and SmallWorks separately restate and incorporate by
`
`reference their responses to paragraphs 1 through 20 as if fully stated herein.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`48.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`Separately denied.
`
`
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Rubicon and SmallWorks separately deny all allegations not expressly
`
`admitted herein. Rubicon and SmallWorks further separately deny that Lego is
`
`entitled to any of the relief requested or to any relief whatsoever. Rubicon and
`
`SmallWorks separately respectfully request that the Court: (a) dismiss this action
`
`with prejudice; (b) enter judgment in favor of SmallWorks and Rubicon; (c) award
`
`SmallWorks and Rubicon their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
`
`defending this action pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and (d) award SmallWorks and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 6 of 17
`
`Rubicon such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
`
`SEPARATE DEFENSES
`
`Without prejudice to the denials set forth in its Answer, without admitting
`
`any allegation in the Complaint not otherwise admitted, and without undertaking
`
`any of the burdens imposed by law on Lego, Rubicon and SmallWorks separately
`
`assert the following separate defenses:
`
`First Defense
`
`The Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`
`Second Defense
`
`The manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, importation, and/or marketing of
`
`the accused products identified above have not infringed, does not infringe, and
`
`would not—if made, used, sold, offered for sale, imported, or marketed—infringe,
`
`either directly or indirectly, any valid and/or enforceable claim of the Asserted
`
`Patents (as such term is defined in the Complaint), either literally or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents.
`
`Third Defense
`
`The claims of the Asserted Patents are invalid for failure to comply with one
`
`or more of the conditions for patentability set forth in Title 35 of the United States
`
`Code, and/or for double-patenting.
`
`Fourth Defense
`
`Upon information and belief, neither Lego nor Lego’s licensees or assignor
`
`for the Asserted Patents have marked instrumentalities that embody any of the
`
`claims of the Asserted Patents with proper notice of the patents in compliance with
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 7 of 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287. Lego is not entitled to any pre-filing damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 287 for any claims to which 35 U.S.C. § 287 applies.
`
`Fifth Defense
`
`Lego’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the equitable doctrines of
`
`laches, waiver, acquiescence, estoppel, and/or unclean hands.
`
`Sixth Defense
`
`Any additional defenses or counterclaims that discovery may reveal,
`
`including unenforceability.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS
`
`Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff SmallWorks, LLC (“SmallWorks”) for its
`
`Counterclaims against Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Lego System, A/S
`
`(collectively “Counterclaim-Defendant” or “Lego”), allege as follows:
`
`
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`SmallWorks is a limited liability company with a place of business of
`
`7212 McNeil Drive, Suite 204, Austin, Texas 78729.
`
`2.
`
`Upon information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendant purports to be
`
`a company organized under the laws of Denmark, with its principal place of
`
`business at Aastvej 1, Dk-7190, Billund, Denmark.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`These Counterclaims arise under the Patent Law of the United States,
`
`35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.; and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction over the subject matter of these
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 8 of 17
`
`Counterclaims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Counterclaim-Defendant
`
`because Counterclaim-Defendant has availed itself of the rights and privileges of
`
`this forum by suing SmallWorks in this District, and/or because Counterclaim-
`
`Defendant conducts substantial business in, and has regular systemic contact
`
`with, this District.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and 1400.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`7.
`
`On or about June 8, 2010, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,731,191
`
`(“the ‘191 patent”).
`
`8.
`
`On or about January 10, 2012, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,091,892 (“the ‘892 patent”).
`
`9.
`
`On or about January 14, 2014, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,628,085 (“the ‘085 patent”).
`
`10. On or about November 25, 2014, the PTO issued U.S. Patent No.
`
`8,894,066 (“the ‘066 patent”).
`
`11. Counterclaim-Defendant purports and claims to have the right to
`
`enforce the ‘191, ‘892, ‘085, and ‘066 patents.
`
`12. Counterclaim-Defendant sued SmallWorks for alleged infringement of
`
`the ‘191, ‘892, ‘085, and ‘066 patents in this District.
`
`COUNT I
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘191 PATENT
`
`13. SmallWorks realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`of counterclaim paragraphs 1-12.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 9 of 17
`
`14. A present, genuine, and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`SmallWorks and Counterclaim-Defendant regarding, inter alia, the validity of the
`
`‘191 patent.
`
`15.
`
`The ‘191 patent is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the
`
`conditions for patentability in Title 35 of the United States Code and/or for double-
`
`patenting.
`
`16. SmallWorks is entitled to a judicial declaration that the ‘191 patent is
`
`invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the conditions for patentability in Title
`
`35 of the United States Code and/or for double-patenting.
`
`COUNT II
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘191 PATENT
`
`17. SmallWorks realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`of counterclaim paragraphs 1-16.
`
`18. A present, genuine, and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`SmallWorks and Counterclaim-Defendant regarding, inter alia, whether the
`
`manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, importation, and/or marketing of the accused
`
`products would infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the ‘191 patent, either
`
`directly or indirectly.
`
`19.
`
`The manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, importation, and/or
`
`marketing of the accused products described would not infringe any valid or
`
`enforceable claim of the ‘191 patent, either directly or indirectly.
`
`20. SmallWorks is entitled to a judicial declaration that the manufacture,
`
`use, offer for sale, sale, importation, and/or marketing of the accused products
`
`would not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid or enforceable claim of the ‘191
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 10 of 17
`
`patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`COUNT III
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘892 PATENT
`
`21. SmallWorks realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`of counterclaim paragraphs 1-20.
`
`22. A present, genuine, and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`SmallWorks and Counterclaim-Defendant regarding, inter alia, the validity of the
`
`‘892 patent.
`
`23.
`
`The ‘892 patent is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the
`
`conditions for patentability in Title 35 of the United States Code and/or for double-
`
`patenting.
`
`24. SmallWorks is entitled to a judicial declaration that the ‘892 patent is
`
`invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the conditions for patentability in Title
`
`35 of the United States Code and/or for double-patenting.
`
`COUNT IV
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘892 PATENT
`
`25. SmallWorks realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`of counterclaim paragraphs 1-24.
`
`26. A present, genuine, and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`SmallWorks and Counterclaim-Defendant regarding, inter alia, whether the
`
`manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, importation, and/or marketing of the accused
`
`products would infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the ‘892 patent, either
`
`directly or indirectly.
`
`27.
`
`The manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, importation, and/or
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 11 of 17
`
`marketing of the accused products would not infringe any valid or enforceable
`
`claim of the ‘892 patent, either directly or indirectly.
`
`28. SmallWorks is entitled to a judicial declaration that the manufacture,
`
`use, offer for sale, sale, importation, and/or marketing of the accused products
`
`would not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid or enforceable claim of the ‘892
`
`patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`COUNT V
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘085 PATENT
`
`29. SmallWorks realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`of counterclaim paragraphs 1-28.
`
`30. A present, genuine, and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`SmallWorks and Counterclaim-Defendant regarding, inter alia, the validity of the
`
`‘085 patent.
`
`31.
`
`The ‘085 patent is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the
`
`conditions for patentability in Title 35 of the United States Code and/or for double-
`
`patenting.
`
`32. SmallWorks is entitled to a judicial declaration that the ‘085 patent is
`
`invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the conditions for patentability in Title
`
`35 of the United States Code and/or for double-patenting.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 12 of 17
`
`COUNT VI
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘085 PATENT
`
`33. SmallWorks realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`of counterclaim paragraphs 1-32.
`
`34. A present, genuine, and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`SmallWorks and Counterclaim-Defendant regarding, inter alia, whether the
`
`manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, importation, and/or marketing of the accused
`
`products would infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the ‘085 patent, either
`
`directly or indirectly.
`
`35.
`
`The manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, importation, and/or
`
`marketing of the accused products would not infringe any valid or enforceable
`
`claim of the ‘085 patent, either directly or indirectly.
`
`36. SmallWorks is entitled to a judicial declaration that the manufacture,
`
`use, offer for sale, sale, importation, and/or marketing of the accused products
`
`would not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid or enforceable claim of the ‘085
`
`patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`COUNT VII
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE ‘066 PATENT
`
`37. SmallWorks realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`of counterclaim paragraphs 1-36.
`
`38. A present, genuine, and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`SmallWorks and Counterclaim-Defendant regarding, inter alia, the validity of the
`
`‘066 patent.
`
`39.
`
`The ‘066 patent is invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 13 of 17
`
`conditions for patentability in Title 35 of the United States Code and/or for double-
`
`patenting.
`
`40. SmallWorks is entitled to a judicial declaration that the ‘066 patent is
`
`invalid for failure to satisfy one or more of the conditions for patentability in Title
`
`35 of the United States Code and/or for double-patenting.
`
`COUNT VIII
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘066 PATENT
`
`41. SmallWorks realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`of counterclaim paragraphs 1-40.
`
`42. A present, genuine, and justiciable controversy exists between
`
`SmallWorks and Counterclaim-Defendant regarding, inter alia, whether the
`
`manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, importation, and/or marketing of the accused
`
`products would infringe any valid or enforceable claim of the ‘066 patent, either
`
`directly or indirectly.
`
`43.
`
`The manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, importation, and/or
`
`marketing of the accused products would not infringe any valid or enforceable
`
`claim of the ‘066 patent, either directly or indirectly.
`
`44. SmallWorks is entitled to a judicial declaration that the manufacture,
`
`use, offer for sale, sale, importation, and/or marketing of the accused products
`
`would not infringe, directly or indirectly, any valid or enforceable claim of the ‘066
`
`patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 14 of 17
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, SmallWorks respectfully prays for judgment in its favor and
`
`against Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendant:
`
`(a) Declaring that the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, importation,
`
`and/or marketing of the accused products have not infringed, do not
`
`infringe, and would not—if made used, sold, offered for sale, imported, or
`
`marketed—infringe, either directly or
`
`indirectly, any valid and/or
`
`enforceable claim of the ‘191 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents;
`
`(b) Declaring that the claims of the ‘191 patent are invalid;
`
`(c) Declaring that the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, importation,
`
`and/or marketing of the accused products have not infringed, do not
`
`infringe, and would not—if made used, sold, offered for sale, imported, or
`
`marketed—infringe, either directly or
`
`indirectly, any valid and/or
`
`enforceable claim of the ‘892 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents;
`
`(d) Declaring that the claims of the ‘892 patent are invalid;
`
`(e) Declaring that the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, importation,
`
`and/or marketing of the accused products have not infringed, do not
`
`infringe, and would not—if made used, sold, offered for sale, imported, or
`
`marketed—infringe, either directly or
`
`indirectly, any valid and/or
`
`enforceable claim of the ‘085 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents;
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 15 of 17
`
`(f) Declaring that the claims of the ‘085 patent are invalid;
`
`(g) Declaring that the manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, importation,
`
`and/or marketing of the accused products have not infringed, do not
`
`infringe, and would not—if made used, sold, offered for sale, imported, or
`
`marketed—infringe, either directly or
`
`indirectly, any valid and/or
`
`enforceable claim of the ‘066 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents;
`
`(h) Declaring that the claims of the ‘066 patent are invalid;
`
`(i) Ordering that Plaintiff’s/Counterclaim-Defendant’s Complaint (D.I. 1)
`
`be dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered in favor of SmallWorks;
`
`(j) Declaring this case exceptional and awarding SmallWorks
`
`its
`
`reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of these Counterclaims under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`(k) Awarding SmallWorks such other and further relief as the Court may
`
`deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 16 of 17
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`SmallWorks hereby demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/s/ Stephen P. McNamara
`Stephen P. McNamara, ct01220
`Benjamin C. White, ct27211
`ST. ONGE STEWARD JOHNSTON & REENS, LLC
`986 Bedford Street
`Stamford, Connecticut 06905-5619
`Telephone: 203/324-6155
`Facsimile: 203/327-1096
`Email: smcnamara@ssjr.com
` bwhite@ssjr.com
` litigation@ssjr.com
`
`
`
`Dwayne Goetzel, pro hac vice
`Ryan T. Beard, pro hac vice
`MEYERTONS, HOOD, KIVLIN, KOWERT &
`GOETZEL, P.C.
`1120 South Capital of Texas Hwy.
`Building 2, Suite 300
`
`Austin, Texas 78746
`(512) 853-8800 (telephone)
`(512) 853-8801 (facsimile)
`Email: dgoetzel@intprop.com
` rbeard@intprop.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Dated: July 31, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 3:15-cv-00823-VLB Document 19 Filed 07/31/15 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing was filed
`
`electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing.
`
`Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the court’s
`
`electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as
`
`indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through
`
`the court’s CM/ECF System.
`
`Dated: July 31, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jessica L. White
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17

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