throbber
No. 18-
`
`n the 'uprcm Court of the Mniteb 'tate.
`
`THOMAS S. ROSS,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`-v-
`
`APPLE, INC.,
`A California Corporation,
`Respondent.
`
`On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the
`United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
`
`THOMAS S. Ross
`PETITIONER PRO SE
`P.O. Box 279381
`MIRAMAR, FL 33027
`(954) 312-7532
`ERD1992@GLoBARIzE.COM
`
`OCTOBER 10; 2018
`SUPREME COURT PRESS
`
`•
`
`(888) 958-5705
`
`•
`
`BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
`
`

`

`1
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED'
`The Copyright Act grants copyright owners certain
`exclusive right's, including the rights to reproduce,
`distribute, and publicly display their copyrighted works.
`See 17 U.S.C. § 106. Direct copyright infringement
`occurs when a plaintiff proves ownership of the work at
`issue, and violation of at least one of the rights estab-
`lished by 17 U.S.C. § 106, 17 U.S.C. § 501(a).
`This case presents one question concerning the
`Standard of Review for a Motion of Dismissal in a
`Copyright Act:
`Whether the Eleventh Circuit correctly held that
`granting defendant's Motion for Dismissal was justi-
`fied even though a) plaintiff proved ownership of copy-
`rights that were the subject of the Complaint, and b)
`plaintiff alleged at least one violation of his rights
`established by 17 U.S.C. § 106, 17 U.S.C. § 501(a).
`
`

`

`11
`
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING
`In addition to the parties named in the caption, the
`following entity was a party to the proceeding before
`the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
`Circuit and may therefore be considered a respondent
`under this Court's Rule 12.6:
`• John F. O'Sullivan
`Jason Sternberg
`Hogan Lovells US LLP
`Brickell World Plaza
`600 Brickell Ave. Suite 2700
`Miami, FL 33131
`• Jane Zenzi Li Carter
`Hogan Lovells US LLP
`3 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1500
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`• Clayton C. James
`Jessica Black Livingston
`Katherine A. Nelson
`Hogan Lovells US LLP
`1601 Wewatta Street Suite 900
`Denver, CO 80202
`• Catherine Emily Stetson
`Hogan Lovells US LLP
`555 13th St NW, 7W-302
`Washington DC 20004-1109
`
`

`

`111
`
`RULE 29.6 STATEMENT
`Petitioner Pro Se, Thomas S. Ross, is not a
`corporation.
`
`

`

`iv
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`QUESTIONS PRESENTED........................................i
`PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING ...........................ii
`RULE 29.6 STATEMENT .........................................iii
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................vi
`OPINIONS BELOW ...................................................1
`JURISDICTION..........................................................1
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED.................2
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE....................................3
`Facts of the Case..............................................3
`1. Ross's Lawsuit in the District Court..........4
`The District Court Proceedings.......................5
`Appellant Proved Ownership of Copy-
`rights in Question ....................................... 5
`Appellant Alleged Copying by Apple,
`Inc................................................................5
`Appellant Alleged Striking Similarity.......6
`The Appellate Court Proceedings.................... 7
`Statutory Framework ...................................... 7
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.......10
`I. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT'S STANDARD FOR
`GRANTING Mo'noN TO Disrvllss Is WRONG AND
`CREATES A SPLIT BETWEEN THE ELEVENTH
`CIRCUIT AND OTHER CIRCUITS ........................10
`CONCLUSION .......................................................... 12
`
`

`

`V
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
`
`Page
`
`APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Opinion of the Eleventh Circuit
`(July 12, 2018) .....................................................la
`Order of the District Court of Southern District
`of Florida (July 19, 2017) ...................................9a
`Order of the District Court of Southern District
`of Florida (December 30, 2016)........................21a
`
`

`

`V1
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`Associated Builders, Inc. v. Ala. Power Co.,
`505 F.2d 97 (5th Cir. 1974) .................................8
`Beal v. Paramount Pictures Corp.,
`20 F.3d 454 (11th Cir. 1994).................................7
`Blackburn v. City ofMarshall,
`42 F.3d 925 (5th Cir. 1995).................................. 9
`Campbell v. Wells Fargo Bank,
`781 F.2d 440 (5th Cir. 1986).................................8
`Fernandez-Mon tes v. Allied Pilots Ass 'n,
`987 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1993) ...............................8
`Garrett v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp.,
`938 F.2d 592 (5th Cir. 1991) ............................... 9
`Herzog v. Castle Rock Entm 't,
`193 F.3d 1241 (11th Cir. 1999)..............................8
`Hishon v. King & Spalding,
`467 U.S. 69 (1984) ................................................8
`Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales v.
`A von dale Shipyards, Inc.,
`677 F.2d 1045 (5th Cir. 1982) .........................8, 9
`Lowrey v. Texas A &M Univ. Sys.,
`117 F.3d 242 (5th Cir. 1997) ...............................8
`Newborn v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
`391 F. Supp.2d 181,
`76 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1845 (D.C.C. 2005)....................11
`OriinalAppalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft,
`Inc., 684 F.2d 821 (11th Cir. 1982).......................7
`
`

`

`Vii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES—Continued
`
`Page
`
`Petrella v. Metro Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.
`EtAL, 134 S.Ct. 1962 (2014) ............................... 6
`Sony Corp. ofAm. v. Universal City Studios,
`Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)......................................7
`Spiller v. City of Tex. City, Police Dept,
`130 F.3d 162 (5th Cir. 1997).................................8
`Swierkie wicz v. Sorema NA.,
`534 U.S. 506, 122 S.Ct. 992 (2002) ..................... 9
`Tin Pan Apple, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., Inc.,
`737 F. Supp. 826, 17 Media L. Rep. (BNA)
`2273,15 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1412 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).......12
`
`STATUTES
`17 U.S.C. § 102(a) .......................................................7
`17 U.S.C. § 106.....................................................i, 2, 7
`17 U.S.C. § 501(a) ................................................i, 3,7
`28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) .....................................................1
`
`JUDICIAL RULES
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ....................................................9, 11
`LR7.1(a)(c)(1) .............................................................4
`Sup. Ct.R. 12.6 ...........................................................ii
`Sup. Ct. R. 29.6 ..........................................................iii
`
`

`

`1
`
`OPINIONS BELOW
`Opinion issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for
`the Eleventh Circuit as to Appellant Thomas S. Ross.
`Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opin-
`ion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available
`through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://
`www.call.uscourts.gov/opinions. [Entered: 07/12/2018
`11:45 AM]
`Order of the U.S. District Court for The Southern
`District of Florida as to Plaintiff Thomas S. Ross.
`Decision: Granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
`(Entered December 30, 2016)
`Order of the U.S. District Court for The Southern
`District of Florida as to Plaintiff Thomas S. Ross.
`Decision: Denied Motion for Leave to File Amended
`Complaint (Entered July 19, 2017).
`
`JURISDICTION
`The judgment of the court of appeals was entered
`on July 12, 2018. On July 14, This Court's jurisdiction
`is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).
`
`

`

`2
`
`STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED
`. 17U.S.C.106
`The Copyright Act provides in pertinent part that:
`Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of
`copyright under this title has the exclusive rights
`to do and to authorize any of the following:
`to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies
`or phonorecords;
`to prepare derivative works based upon the
`copyrighted work;
`to distribute copies or phonorecords of the
`copyrighted work to the public by sale or
`other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
`lease, or lending;
`in the case of literary, musical, dramatic,
`and choreographic works, pantomimes, and
`motion pictures and other audiovisual works,
`to per-form the copyrighted work publicly;
`in the case of literary, musical, dramatic,
`and choreographic works, pantomimes, and
`pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, in-
`cluding the individual images of a motion
`picture or other audiovisual work, to display
`the copy-righted work publicly;
`
`

`

`3
`
`17 U.S.C. § 501(a)
`The Copyright Act further provides in pertinent
`part that:
`Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights
`of the copyright owner as provided by section El
`106 * * * is an infringer of the copyright.
`
`-1.,.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`A. Facts of the Case
`In 1992, Ross created a set of original drawings
`in free-hand style and on plain lined medium paper,
`each depicting different views of what Ross called an
`Electronic Reading Device ("ERD") collection.
`On or about May 4, 2014, Ross registered his works
`of original authorship, with the United States Copyright
`Office, and secured Certificates of Registration for
`each of the works of original authorship.
`The One work of original authorship, that is
`relevant in this cause of action, is the drawing identified
`by the U.S. Copyright Office as Certificate of Regis-
`tration VAu 1-186-491 (491):
`On March 10, 2015, Ross sent a cease and
`desist letter to Apple, stating that Apple (1)
`infringed on his exclusive copyrights, (2)
`copied Ross's original design, (3) prepared
`derivative works based upon Ross's copy-
`righted work, (4) distributed copies of Ross's
`protected work to the public, and, (5) caused
`
`

`

`images of Ross's copyrighted work to be dis-
`played publicly without Ross's permission.
`On June 10, 2015, Apple sent a reply letter
`to Ross declining to comply.
`
`1. Ross's Lawsuit in the District Court
`On or about June 27, 2016, Ross filed an action
`in the United States Court for the Southern District
`of Florida alleging 17 counts relating to copyright
`infringement and misappropriation of intellectual
`property by Defendant-Appellee Apple, Inc. ("Apple").
`On December 30, 2016, the court granted Apple's
`motion to dismiss, holding that "Ross's Complaint
`satisfies the first element of an infringement claim"
`because Ross holds five copyright registrations for
`his drawings and these Certificates were attached to
`the Complaint. However, the district court dismissed
`the initial Complaint on the second element of the
`infringement claim, holding that it "d[id] not present
`with particularity" a description of how Apple's in-
`fringing designs were "strikingly similar" to the
`drawings copyrighted by Ross.
`The district court allowed Ross to seek leave to
`amend his complaint by January 21, 2017. Because
`January 21 fell on a Saturday, the actual due date
`was January 23, 2017. See Local Rule 7. 1 (a)(c)(1).
`On January 23, 2017, Ross filed a Motion for Leave
`to File an Amended Complaint, attaching the Amended
`Complaint to his motion. The Amended Complaint
`alleged a single count of copyright infringement against
`Apple's designs, and, as the district court noted, "ex-
`pand[ed] on the descriptions of the similarities between
`the ERD and Apple's products."
`
`

`

`5
`
`On July 18, 2017, the district court issued a
`Judgment and Order denying Ross's Motion to File an
`Amended Complaint
`
`B. The District Court Proceedings
`
`Appellant Proved Ownership of Copyrights in
`Question
`Appellant attached to his original Complaint,
`the Certificates of Copyright that were at issue in his
`original Copyright infringement allegations against
`Respondent, and the District Court acknowledged, in
`her Order Granting Motion To Dismiss, that "Ross's
`Complaint satisfies the first element of an infringement
`claim by alleging that he holds five copyright regis-
`trations in relation to each ERD Written Material." See
`Order of the U.S. District Court For The Southern
`District of Florida as to Plaintiff Thomas S. Ross.
`(Entered December 30, 2016) pg. 6-7.
`
`Appellant Alleged Copying by Apple, Inc.
`Respondent, by way of various Apple executives,
`publicly bragged about stealing abandoned ideas in
`order to profit from them and, not surprisingly did
`just that. They appropriated technologies and designs,
`aggregated all these components into their iPhone,
`iPad and iPod and created a money-making juggernaut.
`Apple, Inc., then, adopted a strategy to make slight
`changes or improvements to various components of
`these devices, in order to re-brand them as new
`generations of products, while maintaining the original
`design, that, by their own admission, was the thing
`that produced enormous sales worldwide from 2007 on.
`This is the design that Appellant alleges has "the same
`
`

`

`concept, feel and look" to that of Plaintiff's drawing
`identified as "drawing 491" in his Amended Complaint,
`that never saw the light of day because the District
`Court denied Appellant's Motion To File his Amended
`Complaint.
`As to this element, the District Court found that
`"It does not, however, allege any facts showing when
`and how Apple copied constituent elements of Ross's
`original works." See Order of the U.S. District Court
`For the Southern District of Florida as to Plaintiff
`Thomas S. Ross. (Entered December 30, 2016) pg. 7.
`
`3. Appellant Alleged Striking Similarity
`Ross alleged that APPLE, Inc. product line was
`strikingly similar to his copyright protected design
`because they have the "same overall look and feel"
`(See Petrella v. Metro Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. Et Al,
`134 S.Ct. 1962 (2014)) consisting of a distinctive shape
`and appearance, a flat rectangular shape with rounded
`corners".1 Ross, then, enumerates all of APPLE, Inc.
`devices that infringe on his copyrighted design "491",
`and alleges that this is a continuous infringement
`running from 2007 and continuing to this date, thus
`inclusive of the last three years from the commence-
`ment of this action. The District Court saw it differ-
`ently, as it concluded that "This lack of specificity leaves
`
`1 This is the same standard of comparison that Apple, Inc. used
`in their Complaint when they claimed that Samsung was
`infringing on the designs of their products. (See Apple's Complaint
`in Apple v. Samsung. as filed in the United States District for
`The Northern District of California on April 11, 2011.) (* * * The
`iphone is radically different from the devices that preceded it. It
`has a distinctive shape and appearance-a flat rectangular shape
`with rounded corners * * *
`
`

`

`7
`
`the Complaint bereft of detail sufficient to afford Apple
`the opportunity to draft a meaningful responsive plead-
`ing." See Id. Pg 10.
`
`The Appellate Court Proceedings
`The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
`Affirmed the decisions of the District Court for The
`Southern District of Florida, on July 12, 2018.
`
`Statutory Framework
`The Copyright Act grants copyright owners certain
`exclusive rights, among them the rights to reproduce,
`distribute, and publicly display their copyrighted works,
`and to authorize others to do the same. See 17 U.S.C.
`§ 106(1), (3), (5). As this Court has explained, "[alnyone
`who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright
`owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive
`domain by using or authorizing the use of the copy-
`righted work in one of the * * * ways set forth in the
`statute, 'is an infringer of the copyright."' Sony Corp.
`of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417,
`433 (1984) (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 501(a)).
`"Two elements must be proven to establish copy-
`right infringement: (1) ownership of a valid copyright,
`and (2) copying of constituent elements of the work
`that are original. Beal v. Paramount Pictures Corp.,
`'20 F.3d 454, 459 (11th Cir. 1994). As to the first prong,
`an "author has a valid copyright in an original work
`at the moment it is created—or, more specifically,
`fixed in any tangible medium of expression." See
`Original Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. Toy Loft, Inc.,
`684 F.2d 821, 823 n.1 (11th Cir. 1982) (citing 17 U.S.C.
`§ 102(a)). Copyright law never protects an idea itself,
`
`

`

`[]
`
`but only protects the expression of that idea. Herzog v.
`Castle Rock Entin't, 193 F.3d 1241, 1248 (11th Cir.
`1999)." See Opinion of the United States Court of
`Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (July 12, 2018), pg. 6.
`Standard of Review of a Motion to Dismiss.
`[A] motion to dismiss for failure to state a
`claim is viewed with disfavor and is rarely
`granted." Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales
`v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045,
`1050 (5th Cir. 1982). The court must accept
`as true all well pleaded, nonconclusory allega-
`tions in the complaint, and must liberally
`construe the complaint in favor of the plain-
`tiff. Lowrey v. Texas A &M Univ. Sys., 117
`F.3d 242, 246-247 (5th Cir. 1997); Campbell
`v. Wells Fargo Bank, 781 F.2d 440, 442 (5th
`Cir.1986). However, conclusory allegations,
`unwarranted deductions of fact, or legal
`conclusions masquerading as factual allega-
`tions will not suffice to prevent the granting
`of a motion to dismiss. Fernandez-Mon tes v.
`Allied Pilots Ass'n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th
`Cir. 1993); Spiller v. City of Tex. City, Police
`Dep't, 130 F.3d 162, 167 (5th Cir. 1997); Asso-
`ciated Builders, Inc. v. Ala. Power Co., 505
`F.2d 97, 100 (5th Cir. 1974). A court should
`not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a
`claim unless it appears beyond doubt from
`the face of the plaintiffs pleadings that he
`can prove no set of facts in support of his
`claim that would entitle him to relief. Hishon
`v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984);
`Garrett v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp.,
`
`

`

`938 F.2d 592, 594 (5th Cir. 1991); Kaiser Alu-
`minum, 677 F.2d at 1050. Dismissal is proper
`if the complaint lacks an allegation regarding
`a required element necessary to obtain relief.
`Blackburn v. City of Marshall, 42 F.3d 925,
`930 (5th Cir. 1995).
`[...1
`Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement
`of the claim showing that the pleader is
`entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The
`statement must give the defendant fair
`notice of the plaintiffs claim and the grounds
`upon which it rests. Swierkiewicz, 534 U.S.
`at 512, 122 S.Ct. at 998. The simplified notice-
`pleading standard relies on liberal discovery
`rules and summary-judgment motions to
`define the disputed facts and issues and dis-
`pose of meritless claims. Id. at 512, 122 S.Ct.
`at 998.
`See Arista Records v. David Greubel Case 4:05-cv-
`00531-Y.
`
`

`

`10
`
`REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
`Whether the Eleventh Circuit should have denied
`Motion to Dismiss when Plaintiff attached certificates
`of Copyright to his Complaint and satisfying the
`question of ownership, thus Creating a Split Between
`The 11th Circuit and the 2nd and 5th Circuits.
`
`I. THE ELEVENTH CIRCUITS STANDARD FOR GRANTING
`MOTION TO Dismiss Is WRONG AND CREATES A Spu'r
`BETWEEN THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT AND OTHER
`CIRCUITS
`In contemplating the course of events in this
`instant case, Appellant is reminded of a currently
`popular television advertisement, where, in the back-
`ground, it shows a mother manually washing dishes
`and then, putting them in the dishwasher, prompting
`the young girl in the foreground, to ask "what is the
`dishwasher for?".
`It strikes Appellant that much of these proceed-
`ing involving Copyright litigation prompts the same
`question.
`Consider the fact that we have a Copyright Office
`whose task is to determine what is copyrightable and
`what is not. Appellant waited a year, for the decision
`of the Copyright Office to determine that his sub-
`missions were, indeed, worthy of copyright protection.
`Then, there is a rule that requires a litigant to have
`a Certificate of Copyright before he/she can file a
`copyright infringement lawsuit. In addition, much is
`written to profess that the Office of Copyright is
`
`

`

`11
`
`given much deference during legal proceedings, with
`respect to copyrightability, and has been further
`widely held that the Certificate of Copyright creates
`a presumption of ownership.
`Yet, this Eleventh Court of Appeals has demon-
`strated that a judge has the power to declare a
`copyrighted design certified to be protectable, null
`and void, stating, "there is nothing uniQue or expressive
`about a handheld electronic device being rectangular
`with a screen" (See the Opinion at pg. 9), yet, that is
`exactly what the Copyright Office issued a Certificate
`of Copyright for. So, this begs the question, what is a
`Copyright Office for?
`In consideration of Rule 8 of Federal Rules of
`Civil Procedure, and the standard of Review relating
`to Motions to Dismiss, The Court of Appeals was wrong
`in Affirming the Motion to Dismiss. As in many other
`copyright litigations, lip service is given to 1) Rule 8,
`2) allowing Pro Se litigants a more liberal interpreta-
`tion, and 3) viewing the facts in light most favorable
`to the Plaintiff, but if fact, as in this instant case, all
`of this is, more often than not, is totally ignored.
`Even when a Plaintiff may fall short with allega-
`tions of copying or "Striking Similarity", a Plaintiff
`that has proven ownership of the subject Copyright
`protected designs, and has attached the Copyright
`Certificates to the Complaint, should be given a chance
`to test his claim of infringement through discovery and
`Trial by Jury, rather than by an Order by the
`"Bench". This is wrong, and this Court should overturn
`decisions by the lower courts. See Newborn v. Yahoo!,
`Inc., 391 F. Supp.2d 181, 76 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1845 (D.C.C.
`2005) citing Tin Pan Apple, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co.,
`
`

`

`12
`
`Inc., 737 F. Supp. 826, 17 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2273,
`15 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1412 (S.D.N.Y. 1990).
`
`.T.
`
`CONCLUSION
`The 11th Circuit Affirmed a dismissal of a Motion
`to Dismiss granted by the District Court in spite of
`Plaintiffs showing that he owned Certificates of
`Copyright by attaching same to the Complaint, and
`alleging that defendant copied his designs and alleged
`that the designs were infringing in that the overall
`concept, feel and look of them, are "strikingly similar"
`as viewed by an ordinary person, not an expert.
`Plaintiff should have been allowed to test the validity
`of his claims through discovery, and have a trier of
`facts, a Jury, determine whether Plaintiffs designs are
`copyrightable and whether Apple, Inc. infringed on
`his designs. We have the 11th Circuit ready to Affirm
`a dismissal of Plaintiffs case, whereas the 5th Circuit
`would have likely looked with "disfavor" at such a
`Motion, and the 2nd Circuit would have likely denied
`on the grounds that Plaintiff proved Ownership of the
`copyright, even if his/her allegation of copying and
`"striking similarity" might have been viewed as vague.
`Clearly there are conflicting applications of the
`Standard of Review of Motions to Dismiss in copyright
`infringement cases, among various Circuits, that this
`Court needs to address.
`
`

`

`13
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`THOMAS S. Ross
`PETITIONER PRO SE
`P.O. Box 279381
`MIRAMAIR, FL 33027
`(954) 312-7532
`ERD l992@GLoBARIzE.coM
`
`OCTOBER 10, 2018
`
`

`

`

`

`

`

`APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Opinion of the Eleventh Circuit
`(July 12, 2018) ....................................................la
`
`Order of the District Court of Southern District
`of Florida (July 19, 2017) ...................................9a
`
`Order of the District Court of Southern District
`of Florida (December 30, 2016)........................21a
`
`

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