throbber
Case 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 555
`
`Stephen M. Hash
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`98 San Jacinto Blvd, Suite 1500
`Austin, TX 78701
`(512) 322-3687
`
`Of Counsel for Plaintiff Pozen Inc.
`
`
`
`
`John E. Flaherty
`Jonathan M.H. Short
`McCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
`Four Gateway Center
`100 Mulberry Street
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`(973) 622-4444
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Horizon Pharma, Inc.,
`and Pozen Inc.
`
`Ricardo Rodriguez
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`Tel: (650) 843-5000
`
`Of Counsel for Plaintiff Horizon Pharma, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`Plaintiffs/Counterclaim Defendants,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`HORIZON PHARMA, INC., and POZEN
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC.,
`MYLAN LABORATORIES LIMITED, and
`MYLAN INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs.
`
`Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ ANSWER TO
`DEFENDANTS’ COUNTERCLAIMS
`TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs/Counterclaim-Defendants Horizon Pharma, Inc., and Pozen Inc. (collectively,
`
`“Plaintiffs”), by their attorneys, hereby answer the counterclaims asserted on February 19, 2016 by
`
`Defendants/Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Mylan Pharmaecuticals Inc., Mylan Laboratories Limited, and
`
`Mylan, Inc. (collectively, “Mylan” or “Defendants”) as set forth below. To the extent not
`
`specifically admitted herin, the allegations of the Counterclaims are denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 556
`
`
`ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS’ COUNTER CLAIMS
`
`PARTIES
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiffs admit the allegations of Paragraph 1.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiffs admit the allegations of Paragraph 2.
`
`Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 3.
`
`Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 4.
`
`Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 5.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 6 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs admit that venue is proper in
`
`this District for this action only, that they are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district for this
`
`action only, and that they commenced and continue to prosecute this action.
`
`FIRST COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,852,636)
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 6 of this
`
`Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 8.
`
`Horizon and Pozen allege that Mylan’s proposed naproxen/esomeprazole products
`
`infringe the claims of the ‘636 patent. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 9.
`
`10.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 10 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 10.
`
`11.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 11 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that there is a
`
`
`
`2
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 557
`
`
`case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Mylan as to Mylan’s infringement of the patents-in- suit
`
`and deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 11.
`
`12.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 12 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 12.
`
`SECOND COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,858,996)
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 12 of this
`
`Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 14.
`
`Horizon and Pozen allege that Mylan’s proposed naproxen/esomeprazole products
`
`infringe the claims of the ‘996 patent. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 15.
`
`16.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 16 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 16.
`
`17.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 17 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that there is a
`
`case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Mylan as to Mylan’s infringement of the patents-in- suit
`
`and deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 17.
`
`18.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 18 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 18.
`
`THIRD COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,865,190)
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 558
`
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 18 of this
`
`19.
`
`Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`20.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 20.
`
`Horizon and Pozen allege that Mylan’s proposed naproxen/esomeprazole products
`
`infringe the claims of the ‘190 patent. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 21.
`
`22.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 22 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 22.
`
`23.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 23 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that there is a
`
`case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Mylan as to Mylan’s infringement of the patents-in- suit
`
`and deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 23.
`
`24.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 24 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 24.
`
`FOURTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,161,920)
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 24 of this
`
`Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 26.
`
`Horizon and Pozen allege that Mylan’s proposed naproxen/esomeprazole products
`
`infringe the claims of the ‘920 patent. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 27.
`
`28.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 28 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 28.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 559
`
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 29 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`29.
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that there is a
`
`case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Mylan as to Mylan’s infringement of the patents-in- suit
`
`and deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 29.
`
`30.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 30 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 30.
`
`FIFTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,198,888)
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this
`
`Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 32.
`
`Horizon and Pozen allege that Mylan’s proposed naproxen/esomeprazole products
`
`infringe the claims of the ‘888 patent. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 33.
`
`34.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 34 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 34.
`
`35.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 35 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that there is a
`
`case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Mylan as to Mylan’s infringement of the patents-in- suit
`
`and deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 35.
`
`36.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 36 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 36.
`
`SIXTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698)
`
`
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 560
`
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this
`
`37.
`
`Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`38.
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 38.
`
`Plaintiffs admit the allegations contained in Paragraph 39.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 40.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 41.
`
`42.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 42 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 42.
`
`43.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 43 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that there is a
`
`case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Mylan as to Mylan’s infringement of the patents-in- suit
`
`and deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 43.
`
`44.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 44 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 44.
`
`SEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,852,636)
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 44 of this
`
`Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 46.
`
`Horizon and Pozen allege that Mylan’s proposed naproxen/esomeprazole products
`
`infringe the claims of the ‘636 patent. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 47.
`
`
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 561
`
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 48 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`48.
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 48.
`
`49.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 49 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that there is a
`
`case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Mylan as to Mylan’s infringement of the patents-in- suit
`
`and deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 49.
`
`50.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 50 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 50.
`
`EIGHTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,858,996)
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 50 of this
`
`Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 52.
`
`Horizon and Pozen allege that Mylan’s proposed naproxen/esomeprazole products
`
`infringe the claims of the ‘996 patent. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 53.
`
`54.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 54 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 54.
`
`55.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 55 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that there is a
`
`case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Mylan as to Mylan’s infringement of the patents-in- suit
`
`and deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 55.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Page 7 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/07/16 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 562
`
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 56 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`56.
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 56.
`
`NINTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 8,865,190)
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 56 of this
`
`Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`58.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 58.
`
`Horizon and Pozen allege that Mylan’s proposed naproxen/esomeprazole products
`
`infringe the claims of the ‘190 patent. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 59.
`
`60.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 60 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 60.
`
`61.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 61 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that there is a
`
`case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Mylan as to Mylan’s infringement of the patents-in- suit
`
`and deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 61.
`
`62.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 62 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 62.
`
`TENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,161,920)
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 62 of this
`
`Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 64.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/07/16 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 563
`
`
`Horizon and Pozen allege that Mylan’s proposed naproxen/esomeprazole products
`
`65.
`
`infringe the claims of the ‘920 patent. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 65.
`
`66.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 66 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 66.
`
`67.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 67 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that there is a
`
`case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Mylan as to Mylan’s infringement of the patents-in- suit
`
`and deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 67.
`
`68.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 68 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 68.
`
`ELEVENTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,198,888)
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 68 of this
`
`Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 70.
`
`Horizon and Pozen allege that Mylan’s proposed naproxen/esomeprazole products
`
`infringe the claims of the ‘888 patent. Plaintiffs deny the remaining allegations in Paragraph 71.
`
`72.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 72 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 72.
`
`73.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 73 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that there is a
`
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/07/16 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 564
`
`
`case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Mylan as to Mylan’s infringement of the patents-in- suit
`
`and deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 73.
`
`74.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 74 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 74.
`
`TWELFTH COUNTERCLAIM
`(Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 9,220,698)
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 74 of this
`
`Answer as though fully set forth herein.
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 76.
`
`77.
`
`Plaintiffs deny the allegations in Paragraph 77.
`
`78.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 78 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 78.
`
`79.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 79 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs do not contest that there is a
`
`case or controversy between Plaintiffs and Mylan as to Mylan’s infringement of the patents-in- suit
`
`and deny the remaining allegation in Paragraph 79.
`
`80.
`
`The allegations contained in Paragraph 80 are legal conclusions as to which no
`
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Plaintiffs deny the allegations in
`
`Paragraph 80.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`The “Prayer for Relief” section sets forth legal conclusions and prayers for relief as to which
`
`no response is required. To the extent this section may be deemed to allege any facts or factual or
`
`legal entitlements to the requested relied, Plaintiffs deny each and every allegation. Further,
`
`
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/07/16 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 565
`
`
`Plaintiffs deny that Defendants are entitled to any of the requested relief, either as prayed or
`
`otherwise.
`
`Dated: March 7, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: s/ John E. Flaherty
`John E. Flaherty
`Jonathan M.H. Short
`MCCARTER &ENGLISH, LLP
`Four Gateway Center
`100 Mulberry Street
`Newark, New Jersey 07102
`(973) 622-4444
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs Horizon Pharma,
`Inc., and Pozen Inc.
`
`Ricardo Rodriguez
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`Tel: (650) 843-5000
`
`Of Counsel for Plaintiff Horizon Pharma, Inc.
`
`Stephen M. Hash
`BAKER BOTTS LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1500
`Austin, Texas 78701-4078
`Tel: (512) 322-2500
`
`Of Counsel for Plaintiff Pozen Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

`

`Case 3:15-cv-03327-MLC-DEA Document 34 Filed 03/07/16 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 566
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that true copies of the foregoing ANSWER TO
`
`COUNTERCLAIMS OF DEFENDANTS was caused to be served on March 7, 2016, by electronic
`
`mail and/or the ECF system upon all counsel of record.
`
`By: s/ John E. Flaherty
`John E. Flaherty
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 12
`
`Patent Owner Ex. 2006
`Mylan v. Pozen
`IPR2017-01995
`
`

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