throbber
Case 2:21-cv-06706 Document 1-3 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:13
`Case 2:21-cv-06706 Document1-3 Filed 08/18/21 Page 1of11 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT “A”
`EXHIBIT “A”
`
`

`

`Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 07?1°4VOYR-9:(4)P3M Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court by J. Lara,Deputy Clerk
`
`SUMMONS (AMENDED)
`(CITACION JUDICIAL)
`
`SUM-100
`
`FOR COURT USE ONLY
`(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
`
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
`CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CVS PHARMACY, INC.; FIRST DATABANK, INC.
`
`YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
`(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
`
`ANABELLA NGUYEN and TIM NGUYEN
`
`NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
`below.
`You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
`served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
`case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
`Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.goviselfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the
`court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may
`be taken without further warning from the court.
`There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
`referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
`these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifomia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
`(www.courtinfo.ca.goviselfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
`costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The courts lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
`jAVISO! Lo ban demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la code puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informed& a
`continuaci6n.
`Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO despues de que le entreguen esta cited& y papeles legates pare presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
`carte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una Ilamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene qua estar
`en format° legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
`Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informed& en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
`bibliotece de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de la code que
`le dé un formulario de exenci6n de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podra
`guitar su sue/do, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
`Hay otros requisitos legates. Es recomendable que Ilame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede Ilemar a un servicio de
`remisi& a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legates gratuitos de un
`programa de servicios legates sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
`(www.lawhelpcalifomia.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniendose en contacto con la corte o el
`colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamer las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
`cualquier recuperacion de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesi& de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
`pagar el gravamen de la code antes de que la code pueda desechar el caso.
`The name and address of the court is:
`(El nombre y direcci6n de la corte es):
`
`CASE NUMBER: (NOmero del Caso):
`20STCV08079
`
`Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 N Hill St, Los Angeles, CA 9001
`
`The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, la direcciOn y el nOmero
`de telefono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
`
`Curtis Hoke, The Miller Firm, LLC, 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960, 540-672-4224
`DATE:07/1 4/2021
`Clerk, by
`(Fecha) Sherri R. Carter Executive Officer/ Clerk of Court(secretario)
`(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
`(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatiOn use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010).)
`NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
`
`J. Lara
`
`, Deputy
`(Adjunto)
`
`1. 1-7 as an individual defendant.
`as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
`
`2. I
`
`3. 1 on behalf of (specify): CJ-C l'iluctv10341 1- %-,C •
`FT CCP 416.60 (minor)
`under:
`CCP 416.10 (corporation)
`CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
`I—I CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
`CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
` CCP 416.40 (association or partnership)
` other (specify):
`I-1 by personal delivery on (date)
`
`4.
`
`Forrn Adopted for Mandatory Use
`Judicial Council of California
`SUM-100 (Rev. July 1,2009)
`
`SUMMONS
`
`Page 1 of 1
`Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
`www.courts.ca.gov
`
`

`

`Curtis G. Hoke (SBN 282465)
`THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
`108 Railroad Avenue
`Orange, VA 22960
`Telephone: (540) 672-4224
`Facsimile: (540) 672-3055
`Email : choke@millerfirmllc.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`
`(Unlimited Civil)
`
`ANABELLA NGUYEN and TIM NGUYEN,
`
`Case No.: 20STCV08079
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V.
`
`CVS HEALTH CORPORATION; CVS
`PHARMACY, INC.; FIRST DATABANK, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY
`TRIAL
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`Negligence
`Strict Liability — Failure to Warn
`Loss of Consortium
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL'
`
`Plaintiffs, Anabella Nguyen and Tim Nguyen (collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs"),
`
`allege against CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and First Databank, Inc.
`
`("Defendants") as follows.
`
`I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
`
`1. Plaintiff Anabella Nguyen is a natural person currently residing in California.
`
`'This First Amended Complaint is filed pursuant to C.C.P. § 472(a).
`- -
`First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Electronically Received 07/14/2021 07:42 PM
`
`

`

`2. Plaintiff Tim Nguyen is a natural person currently residing in California and the spouse of
`
`Anabella Nguyen.
`
`3. CVS Health Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`Rhode Island.
`
`4. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. is a Rhode Island corporation with a principal place of business in Rhode
`
`Island.
`
`5. First Databank, Inc. is a Missouri Corporation with a principle place of business in South San
`
`Francisco, California.
`
`6. Upon information and belief, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., First Databank,
`
`Inc. are companies doing business in California.
`
`7. Jurisdiction is proper as Defendants conducted business in California and all relevant actions to
`
`the claim described in detail below occurred in California. Further, Defendant First Databank, Inc. is a
`
`resident of the State of California.
`
`8. Venue is proper because the events giving rise to this action occurred Los Angeles County as
`
`Plaintiff was diagnosed with her injuries at Keck Hospital in Los Angeles.
`
`9. This matter is a negligence and product liability action filed pursuant to the laws of California.
`
`II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`10. Plaintiff Anabella Nguyen is a 44 year old female of Asian ancestry.
`
`1 1. On February 3,2018, Plaintiff Anabella Nguyen was diagnosed with Bells Palsy by Dr. Tim
`
`Lai. Dr. Lai prescribed Plaintiff Tegretol ("Carbamazepine" is a generic form of Tegretol that will be
`
`used interchangeably for the purposes of this complaint) to treat her Bells palsy.
`
`1 2. Dr. Lai performed blood testing and recommended to Ms. Nguyen nd her primary care
`
`physician that she go forward with the course of Tegretol on February 13, 2018.
`
`13. Tegretol carries a significant risk of causing the debilitating skin disease known as Stevens
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`- 2 -
`First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
`
`

`

`Johnson Syndrome ("SJS") and/or Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis ("TEN").
`
`14. Tegretol contains a black box warning on its FDA approved labeling notifying doctors of its
`
`potential to cause these serious skin diseases.
`
`1 5. On Tegretol's FDA approved labeling, Tegretol's black box warning requires a screening for
`
`the HLA-B*1502 allele before the medication can be prescribed to a patients of Asian ancestry. This
`
`allele, which is a particular genetic marker indicated a significantly increased risk of a patient
`
`contracting SJS/TEN, drastically changes the risk benefit analysis of a prescribing physician.
`
`16. Plaintiff Anabella Nguyen is a person of Asian ancestry with the significantly higher risk of
`
`being genetically susceptible to SJS/TEN and likely to have the HLA-B*1502 allele. Plaintiff
`
`underwent blood testing prioi to ingesting Tegretol and the blood testing did riot test for the presence
`
`of the HLA-B*1502 allele.
`
`17. Plaintiff later developed a serious case of SJS/TEN as a result of ingesting Tegretol. After
`
`contracting SJS/TEN, Plaintiff was tested for the HLA-B*1502 allele at St. Agnes Hospital and the lab
`
`results came back positive for this allele.
`
`1 8. Plaintiff asserts claims against Defendants for providing an inadequate warning.
`
`19. Defendants drug monograph does not mention the HLA-B*1502 allele and Asian patients'
`
`need for specific genetic allele testing prior to administration of Tegretol.
`
`20. Plaintiff had no prior history of Tegretol usage as of February 3,2018.
`
`21. Dr. Lai did not tell Plaintiff the risks associated with Tegretol including SJS/TEN and the high
`
`risks and recommended allele testing for Asian populations.
`
`22. On February 14, 2018, CVS Pharmacy in Westminster California dispensed Tegretol to
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`23. CVS Pharmacy provided Ms. Nguyen with a Tegretol monograph that accompanied her bottle
`
`of medication.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`- 3 -
`First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
`
`

`

`24. The Tegretol monograph was prepared by First Databank, Inc.
`
`25. The Tegretol monograph fails to adequately to convey the risks and precautions needed for the
`
`product. In particular, the monograph 1) does not reference the HLA-B*1502 allele specifically, 2)
`
`convey the need for genetic testing for Asian patient beyond a simple blood testing, 3) convey that
`
`Asian patients should be genetically screened prior to ingestion, and 4) convey the magnitude of the
`
`severity of the risk of the severe skin reactions for patients that are positive for the allele.
`
`26. If the monograph had contained proper warnings to notify Ms. Nguyen of these risks, she
`
`would have not have taken the medication and or alerted Dr. Lai of the risks who would have
`
`prescribed a different medication or underwent genetic testing that would have contraindicated the
`
`prescription.
`
`27. At no time was Plaintiff warned of the need for genetic testing prior to her ingestion of
`
`Tegretol.
`
`28. Plaintiff Anabella Nguyen is of Asian ancestry. Tegretol's label for 10 years has contained a
`
`black box warning for allele testing to be conducted on patients of Asian ancestry. Tegretol's black
`
`box warning is as follows:
`
`WARNING
`SERIOUS DERMATOLOGIC REACTIONS AND HLA-B*1502 ALLELE
`SERIOUS AND SOMETIMES FATAL DERMATOLOGIC REACTIONS,
`INCLUDING TOXIC EPIDERMAL NECROLYSIS (TEN) AND STEVENS-
`JOHNSON SYNDROME (SJS), HAVE BEEN REPORTED DURING TREATMENT
`WITH TEGRETOL. THESE REACTIONS ARE ESTIMATED TO OCCUR IN 1 TO 6
`PER 10,000 NEW USERS IN COUNTRIES WITH MAINLY CAUCASIAN
`POPULATIONS, BUT THE RISK IN SOME ASIAN COUNTRIES IS ESTIMATED
`TO BE ABOUT 10 TIMES HIGHER. STUDIES IN PATIENTS OF CHINESE
`ANCESTRY HAVE FOUND A STRONG ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE RISK OF
`DEVELOPING SJS/TEN AND THE PRESENCE OF HLA-B*1502, AN INHERITED
`ALLELIC VARIANT OF THE HLA-B GENE. HLA-B*1502 IS FOUND ALMOST
`EXCLUSIVELY IN PATIENTS WITH ANCESTRY ACROSS BROAD AREAS OF
`ASIA. PATIENTS WITH ANCESTRY IN GENETICALLY AT-RISK
`POPULATIONS SHOULD BE SCREENED FOR THE PRESENCE OF THE
`HLA-B*1502 PRIOR TO INITIATING TREATMENT WITH TEGRETOL.
`PATIENTS TESTING POSITIVE FOR THE ALLELE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED
`
`- 4 -
`First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`WITH TEGRETOL UNLESS THE BENEFIT CLEARLY OUTWEIGHS THE RISK
`(SEE WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS/LABORATORY TESTS).
`
`29. Defendants' pamphlet inadequately warned of the precautions and warnings
`
`noted in the manufacturer's labeling and Ms. Nguyen never received such a warning as
`
`described in the manufacturer's black box. As such, Ms. Nguyen proceeded with the prescription
`
`and began ingestion.
`
`30. On or about February 26, 2018 Plaintiff noticed a tender rash on her buttocks, which
`
`quickly progressed to widespread areas of her trunk, extremities, and face.
`
`31. On March 1, 2018, Plaintiff presented to Memorial Care Orange Coast Medical Center's
`
`Emergency Department due to the rash for what she thought was an allergic reaction to beef
`
`soup. She was transferred to USC's burn center and UC Irvine's burn centers.
`
`32. During her admission at UC Irvine Medical Center beginning on March 3, 2018 biopsies
`
`confirmed necrosis and she was diagnosed with SJS due to carbamazepine.
`
`33. Testing during her admission also confirmed the presence of the HLA-B*1502 allele
`
`indicating her extremely high risk of to severe skin reactions from Tegretol.
`
`34. Plaintiff's rash worsened significantly during her admission. It was also noted that
`
`Plaintiff had a generalized erythema, edema with large lakes of vesicles, blisters, and lesions on
`
`his body with skin lesions covering over 50% over the threshold of TEN categorization.2
`
`35. Plaintiff was treated at USC and UCI's burn unit for TEN for a total of 13 days. During
`
`this time Plaintiff experienced extreme pain and suffering.
`
`36. Plaintiff was discharged from UC Irvine on March 13, 2018.
`
`37. As a result of contracting Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis Plaintiff suffered severe pain,
`
`2 When more than 30% of the body has desquamation the patient is given a diagnosis of Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis
`
`(TEN); when less than 30% is involved the diagnosis is Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS).
`- 5 -
`First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
`
`I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`burns, desquamation, and permanent scarring. She has experienced severe emotional and
`
`psychological damage. She has incurred and will incur significant past and future medical
`
`expenses. .Mr. Nguyen suffered damages as his role as a spouse and additional care taker for Ms.
`
`Nguyen and their daughter.
`
`COUNT I
`
`NEGLIGENCE (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
`
`38. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation
`
`set forth in the preceding paragraphs and further allege as follows:
`
`39. Defendants had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the labeling, marketing and distribution
`
`into the stream of commerce of Tegretol, including a duty to insure that the risks of the product were
`
`adequately disclosed to consumers.
`
`40. Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in the labeling, marketing and distribution into
`
`the stream of commerce of Tegretol. Defendants knew or should have known of the significant risks
`
`of Tegretol and necessary precautions consumers should have been informed about.
`
`41. Despite the fact that Defendants knew or should have known of these significant risks,
`
`Defendants failed to adequately include them in their pharmacy pamphlet labeling. A reasonable
`
`distributor under the same or similar circumstances would have properly warned of the danger or
`
`instructed safe use of the product.
`
`42. Defendants' negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
`
`43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered
`
`significant damages, including but not limited to physical injury, economic loss, pain and suffering,
`
`and will continue to suffer such damages in the future.
`
`44. In taking the actions and omissions that caused these damages, Defendants were guilty of
`
`- 6 -
`First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
`
`I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18,
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`malice, oppression and fraud, and Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages.
`
`COUNT II
`
`STRICT LIABILITY — FAILURE TO WARN (INADEQUATE WARNING)
`
`(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
`
`45. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference, as if fully set forth herein, each and every allegation
`
`set forth in the preceding paragraphs and further allege as follows:
`
`46. Defendants labeled, marketed, and distributed into the stream of commerce Tegretol.
`
`47. The Tegretol placed into the stream of commerce by Defendants was defective due
`
`to inadequate warning because Defendants knew or should have known that Tegretol posed significant
`
`risks for Asian patients that required pre-administration testing, but failed to give consumers adequate
`
`warning of such risks.
`
`48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiffs have suffered significant
`
`damages, including but not limited to physical injury, economic loss, pain and suffering and will
`
`continue to suffer such damages in the future
`
`49. In taking the actions and omissions that caused these damages, Defendants were guilty of
`
`malice, oppression and fraud, and Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover punitive damages
`
`COUNT III
`
`LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
`
`(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
`
`50. Plaintiffs repeats and incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint and
`
`further alleges:
`
`51. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiffs Tim Nguyen and Anabella Nguyen were, and are,
`
`legally married as husband and wife.
`
`52. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned conduct of the Defendants, and as a
`
`- 7 -
`First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`result of the injuries and damages to Plaintiffs have been deprived of the love, companionship,
`
`comfort, affection, society, solace or moral support, protection, loss of enjoyment of sexual relations,
`
`and loss of physical assistance in the operation and maintenance of the home, of their spouses and
`
`have thereby sustained, and will continue to sustain damages.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`A. Judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against all Defendants, for damages in such amounts as
`
`may be proven at trial;
`
`B. Compensation for both economic and non-economic losses, including but not limited to
`
`medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of consortium, disfigurement, pain and suffering,
`
`mental anguish and emotional distress, in such amounts as may be proven at trial;
`
`C. Punitive and/or exemplary damages in such amounts as may be proven at trial;
`
`D. Attorneys' fees and costs;
`
`E. Pre and post judgment interest; and
`
`F. Any and all further relief, both legal and equitable, that the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`Dated: July 14, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`THE MILLER FIRM LLC
`
`'rtis G. Toke (SBN 282465)
`THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
`108 Railroad Avenue
`Orange, VA 22960
`Phone (540) 672-4224
`Fax (540) 672-3055
`choke@millerfirmlIc.com
`
`- 8 -
`First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
`
`I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`1 3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all claims so triable in this Complaint.
`
`Dated: July 14, 2021
`
`THE MILLER FIRM LLC
`
`—
`
`.•
`
`Lirtis G. foke (SBN 282465)
`THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
`108 Railroad Avenue
`Orange, VA 22960
`Phone (540) 672-4224
`Fax (540) 672-3055
`choke@millerfirmllc.com
`
`- 9 -
`First Amended Complaint and Jury Demand
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`1 1
`
`12
`
`1 3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

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