throbber
Case 2:21-cv-09423-TJH-GJS Document 98 Filed 09/08/22 Page 1 of 11 Page ID #:1121
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`KELLY M. KLAUS (State Bar No. 161091)
`kelly.klaus@mto.com
`JOHN L. SCHWAB (State Bar No. 301386)
`john.schwab@mto.com
`MICA L. MOORE (State Bar No. 321473)
`mica.moore@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue
`Fiftieth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071-3426
`Telephone:
`(213) 683-9100
`Facsimile:
`(213) 687-3702
`
`Attorneys for Netflix, Inc.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION
`
` Case No. 2:21-cv-09423-TJH-GJS
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR
`COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Judge: Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr.
`
`Ctrm: 9B
`
`
`
`
`
`HOLLYWOOD INNOVATIONS GROUP,
`LLC,
`
`
`vs.
`
`NETFLIX, INC., a Delaware Corporation, ZIP
`CINEMA CO., LTD., a South Korean
`Corporation, KAKAO ENTERTAINMENT
`CORP., a South Korean Corporation,
`PERSPECTIVE PICTURES CO., LTD, a
`South Korean Corporation, and Does 1-10,
`inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-TJH-GJS Document 98 Filed 09/08/22 Page 2 of 11 Page ID #:1122
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Defendant NETLFIX, INC. (“Netflix”) hereby answers the Complaint in this matter as
`
`ANSWER
`
`follows:
`
`The allegations of Paragraph 1 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`1.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 1.
`The allegations of Paragraph 2 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`2.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 2.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 3, Netflix avers that #Saraitda
`3.
`premiered in South Korea in or around June 2020; that Netflix, with authorization, streamed
`#Saraitda, dubbed into different languages, on Netflix’s service; and that Netflix streamed
`#Saraitda dubbed into the English language with the title #Alive. The remaining allegations of
`Paragraph 3 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a response. To the extent a response
`is required, Netflix denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 3. Except as specifically
`admitted herein, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 3.
`The allegations of Paragraph 4 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`4.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 4.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 5, Netflix admits that this Court has
`5.
`subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim of copyright infringement. Except as specifically
`admitted herein, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 5.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 6, Netflix denies that venue in this
`6.
`District is proper, for the reasons set forth in Netflix’s motion to dismiss. Netflix is without
`knowledge or information as to the truth of the remaining allegations of Paragraph 6 and on that
`basis denies them.
`Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the allegations in
`7.
`Paragraph 7 and on that basis denies them.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 8, Netflix avers that it is a Delaware
`8.
`corporation with its principal place of business in Los Gatos, California; that it operates a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-TJH-GJS Document 98 Filed 09/08/22 Page 3 of 11 Page ID #:1123
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`subscription-based streaming service; and that it has millions of subscribers around the world.
`The remaining allegations of Paragraph 8 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the remaining allegations of
`Paragraph 8. Except as specifically admitted herein, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 8.
`Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the allegations in
`9.
`Paragraph 9 and on that basis denies them.
`Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the allegations in
`10.
`Paragraph 10 and on that basis denies them.
`Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the allegations in
`11.
`Paragraph 11 and on that basis denies them.
`The allegations of Paragraph 12 are legal arguments or conclusions that do not
`12.
`require a response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix is without knowledge or
`information as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 12 and on that basis denies them.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 13, Netflix avers on information and
`13.
`belief that Matt Naylor is the author of the screenplay that was the basis for #Saraitda and the
`screenplay tells the story of a zombie attack on a man living in an apartment building in Seoul,
`South Korea. Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the remaining allegations of
`Paragraph 13 and on that basis denies them. Except as specifically admitted herein, Netflix denies
`the allegations of Paragraph 13.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 14, Netflix avers on information and
`14.
`belief that Matt Naylor was the sole and exclusive owner of the copyright in his screenplay prior
`to July 18, 2018. Except as specifically admitted herein, Netflix denies the allegations of
`Paragraph 14.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 15, Netflix avers on information and
`15.
`belief that Matt Naylor entered into an agreement, dated as of July 18, 2018, with Zip Cinema Co.,
`Limited and Perspective Pictures Co., Limited. Netflix further avers that the written agreement is
`the best evidence of its contents. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 15 are legal arguments
`or conclusions that do not require a response. To the extent a response to the remaining
`
`
`
`-2-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-TJH-GJS Document 98 Filed 09/08/22 Page 4 of 11 Page ID #:1124
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`allegations of Paragraph 15 is required, Netflix denies the remaining allegations of Paragraph 15.
`Except as specifically admitted herein, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 15.
`Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the allegations in
`16.
`Paragraph 16 and on that basis denies them.
`Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the allegations in
`17.
`Paragraph 17 and on that basis denies them.
`Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the allegations in
`18.
`Paragraph 18 and on that basis denies them.
`The allegations of Paragraph 19 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`19.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix is without knowledge or information as to
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19 and on that basis denies them.
`The allegations of Paragraph 20 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`20.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix is without knowledge or information as to
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 20 and on that basis denies them.
`The allegations of Paragraph 21 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`21.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies that it has any record of a deal or
`deals with Johnny Martin. Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the
`remaining allegations in Paragraph 21 and denies them on that basis.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 22, Netflix avers on information and
`22.
`belief that #Saraitda premiered in South Korea in or around June 2020. Netflix further avers that
`#Saraitda was released as #Alive on Netflix’s service. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 22
`are arguments or conclusions that do not require a response. To the extent a response is required,
`Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the remaining allegations and on
`that basis denies them. Except as specifically admitted herein, Netflix denies the allegations of
`Paragraph 22.
`The allegations of Paragraph 23 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`23.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix is without knowledge or information as to
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 23 and on that basis denies them.
`
`
`
`-3-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-TJH-GJS Document 98 Filed 09/08/22 Page 5 of 11 Page ID #:1125
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`The allegations of Paragraph 24 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`24.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix is without knowledge or information as to
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 24 and on that basis denies them.
`The allegations of Paragraph 25 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`25.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix is without knowledge or information as to
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 25 and on that basis denies them.
`The allegations of Paragraph 26 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`26.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix is without knowledge or information as to
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 26 and on that basis denies them.
`The allegations of Paragraph 27 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`27.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix is without knowledge or information as to
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 27 and on that basis denies them.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 28, Netflix avers that it acquired the
`28.
`rights to stream #Saraitda throughout the world except for Korea and mainland China and the
`rights to translate #Saraitda into all languages. Netflix further avers that it acquired those rights
`from an entity called Lotte Culture Works, Ltd., which represented, covenanted, and warranted
`that it was the possessor of the rights it granted to Netflix. On information and belief, Netflix
`avers that Lotte Culture Works, Ltd. is the successor in interest to Lotte Entertainment. Except as
`specifically admitted herein, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 28.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 29, Netflix avers that Squid Game is a
`29.
`Korean-language television series that has streamed on the Netflix service dubbed into other
`languages, including English; that Money Heist is a Spanish-language television series that has
`streamed on the Netflix service dubbed into other languages, including English; and that Lupin is a
`French-language television series that has streamed on the Netflix service dubbed into other
`languages, including English. Netflix further avers that the three series were viewed numerous
`times on Netflix’s service, and that as of the filing of this Answer, Squid Game and Money Heist
`are among the ten most-viewed series in the history of the Netflix service. The remaining
`allegations of Paragraph 29 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a response. To the
`
`
`
`-4-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-TJH-GJS Document 98 Filed 09/08/22 Page 6 of 11 Page ID #:1126
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`extent a response is required, Netflix denies the remaining allegations. Except as specifically
`admitted herein, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 29.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 30, Netflix avers that the article cited at
`30.
`footnotes 2 and 3 of the Complaint is the best evidence of that article’s contents. The remainder of
`Paragraph 30 consists of arguments or conclusions that do not require a response. To the extent a
`response is required, Netflix denies the allegations. Except as specifically admitted herein, Netflix
`denies the allegations of Paragraph 30.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 31, Netflix avers that the article cited at
`31.
`footnotes 2 and 3 of the Complaint is the best evidence of that article’s contents. The remainder of
`Paragraph 31 consists of arguments or conclusions that do not require a response. To the extent a
`response is required, Netflix denies the allegations. Except as specifically admitted herein, Netflix
`denies the allegations of Paragraph 31.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 32, Netflix avers that #Saraitda began
`32.
`streaming on the Netflix service in or around September 2020. Netflix further avers that
`#Saraitda appears in English as #Alive on the Netflix service. Netflix further avers that #Saraitda
`was subtitled and dubbed in multiple languages. Except as specifically admitted herein, Netflix
`denies the allegations of Paragraph 32.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 33, Netflix avers that the articles cited at
`33.
`footnotes 4 and 5 of the Complaint are the best evidence of those articles’ contents. The
`remainder of Paragraph 33 consists of arguments or conclusions that do not require a response. To
`the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations. Except as specifically admitted
`herein, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 33.
`Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the allegations in
`34.
`Paragraph 34 and on that basis denies them.
`The allegations of Paragraph 35 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`35.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix is without knowledge or information as to
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 35 and on that basis denies them.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-TJH-GJS Document 98 Filed 09/08/22 Page 7 of 11 Page ID #:1127
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`The allegations of Paragraph 36 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`36.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix is without knowledge or information as to
`the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 36 and on that basis denies them.
`The allegations of Paragraph 37 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`37.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix avers that #Saraitda was subtitled and
`dubbed in multiple languages. Except as specifically admitted herein, Netflix denies the
`allegations of Paragraph 37.
`In response to the allegations of Paragraph 38, Netflix avers that it received a letter
`38.
`dated September 18, 2020 from then-counsel for Plaintiff, and that letter is the best source of its
`contents. Netflix futher avers that it has not removed #Saraitda from its service. Except as
`specifically admitted herein, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 38.
`Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the truth of the allegations in
`39.
`Paragraph 39 and on that basis denies them.
`The allegations of Paragraph 40 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`40.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations.
`The allegations of Paragraph 41 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`41.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations.
`The allegations of Paragraph 42 are arguments or conclusions that do not require a
`42.
`response. To the extent a response is required, Netflix avers that it tracks viewership of
`programming on its service, but otherwise denies the allegations of Paragraph 42.
`In response to Paragraph 43, Netflix avers that #Saraitda is streaming on the
`43.
`Netflix service as of the date of this Answer. Netflix denies that it is involved in a forthcoming
`television series based on #Alive. Netflix is without knowledge or information as to the truth of
`the allegation that such a series is being planned or is forthcoming, and so denies the allegation on
`that basis. Except as specifically admitted herein, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 43.
`Paragraph 44 incorporates earlier allegations, so no responsive pleading is required.
`44.
`To the extent any response is required, Netflix repeats and incorporates by reference each and
`every answer contained in Paragraphs 1 through 43 above as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`-6-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-TJH-GJS Document 98 Filed 09/08/22 Page 8 of 11 Page ID #:1128
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`The allegations of Paragraph 45 are legal arguments or conclusions as to which no
`45.
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Netflix is without knowledge or
`information as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 45 and on that basis denies them.
`The allegations of Paragraph 46 are legal arguments or conclusions as to which no
`46.
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations.
`The allegations of Paragraph 47 are legal arguments or conclusions as to which no
`47.
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations.
`The allegations of Paragraph 48 are legal arguments or conclusions as to which no
`48.
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations.
`The allegations of Paragraph 49 are legal arguments or conclusions as to which no
`49.
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations.
`The allegations of Paragraph 50 are legal arguments or conclusions as to which no
`50.
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations.
`The allegations of Paragraph 51 are legal arguments or conclusions as to which no
`51.
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations.
`The allegations of Paragraph 52 are legal arguments or conclusions as to which no
`52.
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Netflix avers that #Saraitda is
`streaming on the Netflix service as of the date of this Answer. Except as specifically admitted
`herein, Netflix denies the allegations of Paragraph 52.
`The allegations of Paragraph 53 are legal arguments or conclusions as to which no
`53.
`response is required. To the extent a response is required, Netflix denies the allegations.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-TJH-GJS Document 98 Filed 09/08/22 Page 9 of 11 Page ID #:1129
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Netflix sets forth its affirmative defenses below. By enumerating the below as affirmative
`
`defenses, Netflix does not concede that any such matter is an affirmative defense, as opposed to an
`
`element of Plaintiff’s claim as to which Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Netflix does not
`
`assume the burden of proving any fact, issue, or element of a cause of action where such burden
`
`properly belongs to Plaintiff. Moreover, nothing stated herein is intended to or shall be construed
`
`as an acknowledgement that any particular issue or subject matter necessarily is relevant to
`
`Plaintiff’s allegations.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Statute of Limitations)
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of
`limitations.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Unclean Hands)
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of unclean hands.
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Equitable Estoppel)
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of equitable
`estoppel.
`
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Waiver)
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of waiver.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-TJH-GJS Document 98 Filed 09/08/22 Page 10 of 11 Page ID #:1130
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Innocent Infringement)
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because, to the extent there was
`any infringement, the conduct of Netflix that is the subject of the Complaint was
`innocent and not willful.
`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(License)
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Netflix had an express
`license to engage in the conduct that is the subject of the Complaint.
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Implied License)
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of implied license.
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(De Minimis Infringement)
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because if there was any
`infringement, it was de minimis.
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to Join Indispensable Party or Parties)
`Plaintiff’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because it has failed to join one or
`more indispensable parties.
`RESERVATION OF ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
`Defendants reserve the right to assert additional affirmative defenses as they
`become known through investigation or discovery.
`DEFENDANTS’ PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Defendants pray as follows:
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`1.
`2.
`Netflix;
`
`
`
`
`
`That Plaintiff take nothing by way of its Complaint;
`That the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and judgment entered in favor of
`
`
`-9-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-09423-TJH-GJS Document 98 Filed 09/08/22 Page 11 of 11 Page ID #:1131
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`That Netflix be awarded its costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable
`3.
`attorneys’ fees; and
`For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
`4.
`
`
`DATED: September 8, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Kelly M. Klaus
`KELLY M. KLAUS
`
`By:
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendants
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`DEFENDANT NETFLIX, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`

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