throbber

`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`
`CO Craft, LLC dba Freshcraft and Arborz,
`
`LLC dba The Piper Inn.,
`
`Civil Action No.: 20-cv-01327-NYW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`V
`
`Grubhub, Inc.,
`
`Defendant
`
`[CORRECTED] SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY
`DEMAND
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs CO Craft, LLC, (“Freshcraft”) and Arborz, LLC (“Piper Inn”) by and through
`
`their attorneys (“Plaintiffs”), file this Second Amended Class Action Complaint against the
`
`Defendant Grubhub, Inc. (“Grubhub”), on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class
`
`of similarly situated restaurants, and alleges, upon personal knowledge as to its own
`
`actions, and upon investigation of counsel as to all other matters, as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`In the midst of the greatest public health and economic crisis in living
`
`memory, Grubhub, one of the largest restaurant delivery services in the United States, is
`
`knowingly employing a nationwide false advertising campaign to steer patrons to its
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 18
`
`partner restaurants by falsely declaring that its competitors are closed or not accepting
`
`online orders when they are in fact open for business.
`
`2.
`
`While it is Plaintiffs’ information and belief that Grubhub's false advertising
`
`tactics predate the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact of its nationwide practice is especially
`
`damaging to restaurants that are struggling to keep afloat economically during the
`
`pandemic.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant’s uniform conduct is equally applicable to the class. Plaintiffs
`
`brings this class action against Defendant for its false advertising campaign against its
`
`competitors and seeks an order requiring Defendant to, among other things: (1)
`
`discontinue its false advertising campaign that suggests competitors’ restaurants as
`
`closed or not open for online ordering when they are accepting orders and open for
`
`business; and (2) pay damages and/or restitution to Plaintiffs and Class members.
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1332(d)(2). The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum
`
`or value of $5,000,000 and is a class action in which there are numerous class members
`
`who are citizens of states different from Defendant. The number of members of the
`
`proposed class is in the aggregate greater than 100 and more than two-thirds of the class
`
`members reside in states other than the states in which Defendant is a citizen.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts
`
`significant, substantial, and not-isolated business activities in Colorado and a substantial
`
`portion of the acts complained of took place in Colorado.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6. Venue is proper in the United States District Court of Colorado because
`
`Defendant conducts business in this District and many of the events that gave rise to
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Freshcraft was a Colorado Limited Liability Company operating as
`
`a family owned neighborhood beer bar and restaurant located at 1530 Blake Street in
`
`Denver, Colorado 80202 until ceasing operations on May 29, 2022.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Piper Inn is a Colorado Limited Liability Company operating as a
`
`family owned neighborhood beer bar and restaurant located at 2251 South Parker Road
`
`in Denver, Colorado 80231.
`
`9.
`
`Grubhub Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware with its principal place of business located at 111 W. Washington
`
`Street, Suite 2100, Chicago, Illinois 60602.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`10.
`
`This action arises from Grubhub’s intentional use of a nationwide false
`
`advertising campaign that misleads consumers to maximize its profits to the detriment of
`
`restaurants that choose not to partner with Grubhub.
`
`11.
`
`In the second week of March 2020, COVID-19 was officially declared a
`
`pandemic by the World Health Organization. Americans were told to engage in social
`
`distancing and many people stopped going out to eat at restaurants. On March 13, 2020,
`
`President Trump declared a national emergency as a result of the spread of the COVID-
`
`19 virus.
`
`12.
`
`By April 6, 2020, 42 states issued stay at home orders which effectively
`
`brought the dine-in restaurant experience to a sudden halt.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13.
`
`The National Restaurant Association estimates that there are over 1 million
`
`restaurants in the United States. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, the 2020 Industry sales
`
`projection was $899 billion with a total economic impact of the restaurant industry at more
`
`than $2.5 trillion. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, it was predicted that orders placed via
`
`smartphone or mobile apps would become a $38 billion industry in 2020. Obviously that
`
`number is now higher.
`
`https://www.restaurant.org/research/restaurant-
`
`statistics/restaurant-industry-facts-at-a-glance.
`
`14. Many restaurants began offering their menus for delivery. According to
`
`Eater, an online food and dining network, Yelp saw a sizable interest shift from dine-in
`
`options to delivery and takeout during that time. (FN
`
`https://www.eater.com/2020/3/24/21184301/restaurant-industry-data-impact-covid-19-
`
`coronavirus).
`
`15.
`
`Consumer spending on meal delivery services was up 70% year-over-year
`
`in
`
`the
`
`last week
`
`of March. (https://www.barrons.com/articles/food-delivery-from-
`
`doordash-uber-eats-and-grubhub-is-soaring-because-of-covid-19-51587752806).
`
`16.
`
`Grubhub is one of the largest meal delivery services in the United States.
`
`On March 27, 2020, Grubhub posted a new advertisement to its Youtube channel that
`
`was also broadcast across the country on different media platforms. That ad stated
`
`“Restaurants are our family, the cornerstone of our communities, and our family needs
`
`help. Right now they are facing a crisis. And they are counting on your takeout and
`
`delivery orders to help them through. Because if we don’t treat restaurants like family
`
`today, they might not be around to treat us like family tomorrow. Grubhub, together we
`
`can help save the restaurants we love.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkKct-8TrBc.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 18
`
`17. While Grubhub was promoting a message of unity and suggesting that
`
`people would be helping their favorite restaurants by ordering carry out and by using
`
`Grubhub's delivery services, Grubhub continued to employ a false advertising campaign
`
`that purposefully led consumers to believe that its competitors were closed or not
`
`accepting online orders when they were.
`
`18.
`
`For most restaurants in major metropolitan cities, Grubhub has spent time
`
`and effort to create restaurant landing pages with menu items for all restaurants, including
`
`those that do not do business with Grubhub that can be accessed through its different
`
`platforms.
`
`19.
`
`Grubhub intentionally constructs the metadata of these restaurant landing
`
`pages so that Google search results prioritize Grubhub-created landing pages
`
`constructed with the following template: “[Restaurant] delivery” will identify the Grubhub
`
`landing site created for that restaurant and advertise that “Order delivery or pickup from
`
`[Restaurant] in [City]! View [Restaurant]'s [Month,Year] deals and menus. Support your
`
`local restaurants with Grubhub!”
`
`20.
`
`Until Grubhub finally removed the false listing, a Google search for
`
`Freshcraft’s restaurant online, more specifically, “Freshcraft delivery” brings the following
`
`Grubhub restaurant landing page as the first listing on Google search results, even before
`
`the restaurant’s own website:
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`The metadata on the listing advertised to the potential consumer: “Order
`
`delivery or pickup from Freshcraft in Denver! View Freshcraft's March 2020 deals and
`
`menus. Support your local restaurants with Grubhub!”
`
`22.
`
`Clicking the listing on a webpage browser brought the potential consumer
`
`to the Grubhub landing page where they were told: “This restaurant is not taking online
`
`orders. Try a similar restaurant nearby.” The potential consumer was then directed
`
`towards one of several Grubhub partners so that Grubhub can steer consumers to
`
`restaurants who produce revenue for Grubhub by using their delivery service.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 18
`
`
`
`23.
`
`
`Similarly, clicking on that same link in a mobile browser would automatically
`
`open the Grubhub Application if the user had it downloaded and prominently display that
`
`the restaurant is “Closed.”
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`24.
`
`This online advertisement falsely claimed that Freshcraft was closed when
`
`it was not. In reality, Freshcraft was not only open, but also delivering its food to its
`
`customers using a different delivery platform. At no point did Freshcraft work with
`
`Grubhub and there were never discussions between the two regarding establishment of
`
`a business relationship.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Grubhub additionally listed Piper Inn as available for delivery on their
`
`website and mobile app, despite having no business relationship with Piper Inn. Only after
`
`multiple requests did Grubhub agree to remove their unauthorized Piper Inn listing from
`
`their website.
`
`26.
`
`Despite appearing on Grubhub’s website, Piper Inn did not and does not
`
`offer delivery services through Grubhub.
`
`27.
`
`Due to the lack of business relationship between Grubhub and Piper Inn,
`
`the information that Grubhub improperly listed on their platforms for Piper Inn was
`
`demonstrably incorrect.
`
`28.
`
`Grubhub falsely represented that Piper Inn delivered using Grubhub, their
`
`delivery times, and menu availability.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 18
`
`29.
`
`Due to Grubhub’s false representations using information appropriated from
`
`Piper Inn, customers could place an order for Piper Inn delivery, yet receive nothing.
`
`30.
`
`As a result of Grubhub listing false information for Piper Inn, potential
`
`customers were given incorrect expectations regarding Piper Inn’s prices and delivery
`
`capabilities, which put Piper Inn’s business reputation at risk.
`
`31.
`
`Erik Riggs opened Freshcraft in 2019. The restaurant was situated in
`
`Denver’s lower downtown neighborhood. Rent in that neighborhood was and is still very
`
`high and Freshcraft did everything it could to survive the Covid-19 pandemic. Since
`
`dining-in was not an option for Freshcraft during the pandemic, the revenue garnered from
`
`orders requesting delivery was the only way the restaurant could generate revenue to stay
`
`in business.
`
`32.
`
`Jed Levin operates Piper Inn and the restaurant provides delivery services
`
`for their food independently. However, due to Grubhub’s misrepresentations of Piper Inn’s
`
`delivery availability and menu on their website, Piper Inn has suffered detrimental impacts
`
`to their business reputation regarding their delivery capabilities and menu availability.
`
`33.
`
`Grubhub has willfully and knowingly employed its online false advertising
`
`campaign to the detriment of its competitors. It is Plaintiffs’ information and belief that a
`
`search for many restaurants that do not use Grubhub's delivery service across the country
`
`provides the same results. Grubhub is purposefully listing restaurants as closed or not
`
`taking online orders even though both assertions are completely false.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 18
`
`34.
`
`Grubhub did not contact Plaintiffs to determine if their respective restaurants
`
`were open or delivering before falsely advertising to unwitting consumers that Plaintiffs
`
`were closed.
`
`35.
`
`Grubhub's intentional and willful false advertising campaign is not limited to
`
`mom and pop restaurants; it has also been used on popular, nationwide restaurant
`
`chains.
`
`36.
`
`A Google search for a popular restaurant with hundreds of locations brings
`
`up a Grubhub listing in the results with the address of the nearest location. Clicking on
`
`the link in a mobile browser will automatically open the Grubhub App, if the user has it
`
`downloaded, and prominently display that the restaurant is “Closed.”
`
`37.
`
`Performing the same search on a computer as opposed to a mobile device
`
`will display the message that the restaurant is not taking online orders and direct the
`
`consumer to other restaurants that do contract with Grubhub.
`
`38.
`
`Again, a direct search of the restaurant where the user follows a direct link
`
`to the restaurant's webpage reveals that the restaurant is in fact open for business. The
`
`restaurant is open for pickup and delivery, just not through Grubhub.
`
`39.
`
`The false messages informing customers thar the restaurants are closed or
`
`not taking online orders are posted intentionally, fraudulently and with conscious
`
`disregard for the truth of whether the restaurant is actually closed, whether it is open for
`
`takeout, or whether it is supplying delivery orders with a Grubhub competitor.
`
`40.
`
`Grubhub benefits economically from its willful and false advertising
`
`campaign as consumers are steered to restaurants that use Grubhub’s delivery service.
`
`The willfulness of Grubhub's false advertising campaign is established by the fact that
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 18
`
`only restaurants that do not partner with it are falsely advertised as being closed or not
`
`accepting online delivery orders when they are in fact open for business.
`
`41.
`
`Grubhub's willful and false advertising campaign has directly harmed its
`
`competitors; restaurants that choose to offer their own delivery or use another delivery
`
`service that is not Grubhub.
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this class action under Rule 23 and seeks certification of the
`
`claims and issues in this action pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rule 23. The
`
`proposed class is defined as:
`
`All restaurants in the United States or territories that were listed or otherwise
`included by Grubhub on Grubhub platforms that did not have an unterminated
`contract, partnership, or other agreement to be listed or otherwise included on
`Grubhub platforms at any time from May 11, 2016, to the present. Excluded from
`the Class are (a) all persons who are employees, directors, officers, and agents of
`either Defendant; (b) governmental entities; and (e) the Court, the Court’s
`immediate family, and Court staff.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the Class definitions with
`
`greater specificity or division into subclasses after having had an opportunity to conduct
`
`discovery.
`
`44.
`
`Numerosity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). Defendant is one of the largest food
`
`delivery services in the country. There are more than one million restaurants in the
`
`United States. At a minimum, there are tens of thousands of Class Members but very
`
`likely many more. The exact size of the proposed class and the identity of all class
`
`members can be readily ascertained from Defendant’s records.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 18
`
`45.
`
`Commonality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and (b)(3). There are questions of
`
`law and fact common to the class, which questions predominate over any questions
`
`affecting only individual class members. Common issues include:
`
`a) Whether Defendant's advertising campaign was targeted at restaurants
`
`that did not have a contract with Grubhub;
`
`b) Whether Defendant purposefully and knowingly created landing pages
`
`to falsely advertise its customers’ competitors' services to derive a
`
`financial benefit for it and its customers;
`
`c) Whether Defendant is required to compensate the restaurants that
`
`suffered as a result of Defendant's advertising campaign that rerouted
`
`potential consumers to restaurants that do contract with Grubhub.
`
`46.
`
`The nature of the relief, including equitable relief, to which Plaintiffs and the
`
`class are entitled.
`
`47.
`
`Typicality. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims
`
`of the Class it seeks to represent. Plaintiffs and all Class members similarly suffered from
`
`Defendant's willful and false advertising campaign that deprived them of revenue from
`
`consumers.
`
`48.
`
`Adequacy of Representation. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs will fairly and
`
`adequately represent and protect the interests of the members of the Class. Further,
`
`Plaintiffs’ counsel is competent and experienced in litigating class actions.
`
`49.
`
`Superiority. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). A class action is superior to any other
`
`available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The claims of
`
`Plaintiffs and individual class members are small compared to the burden and expense
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 18
`
`that would be required to separately litigate their claims against Defendant, and it would
`
`be impracticable for class members to seek redress individually. Litigating claims
`
`individually would also be wasteful to the resources of the parties and the judicial system
`
`and create the possibility of inconsistent or contradictory judgments. Class treatment
`
`provides manageable judicial treatment which will bring an orderly and efficient
`
`conclusion to all claims arising from Defendant’s misconduct. Class certification is
`
`therefore appropriate under Rule 23(b)(3).
`
`50.
`
`Class certification is also appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1), as the prosecution
`
`of separate actions by individual members of the class would create the risk of
`
`adjudications with respect to individual class members that would, as a practical matter,
`
`be dispositive of the interests of other members not parties to the adjudication and
`
`substantially impair their ability to protect those interests.
`
`51.
`
`Class certification is also appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2), as Defendant has
`
`acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making
`
`final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief appropriate for the class.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`False Advertising Under Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate herein all allegations set forth above.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has made and distributed, in
`
`52.
`
`53.
`
`interstate commerce and in this District, advertisements that contain false or misleading
`
`statements of fact regarding their services and the services of many restaurants, including
`
`those of the Plaintiffs.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 18
`
`54.
`
`These commercial advertisements contain actual misstatements and/or
`
`misleading statements and failures to disclose, including, among others:
`
`a. Advertising that consumers can use Grubhub to order delivery or pickup
`
`from restaurants and/or omitting that Grubhub is not contracted or
`
`authorized to do so;
`
`b. Advertising that consumers can use Grubhub to find monthly deals for
`
`restaurants and/or omitting that Grubhub is not authorized to and does
`
`not actually display any monthly deals from these restaurants; and
`
`c. Providing false information about the status of restaurants as “Closed”
`
`or “Not currently taking online orders” and/or omitting that those
`
`restaurants are open and taking online orders outside the Grubhub
`
`platform.
`
`55. With thousands of restaurants affected nationwide by Grubhub, a publicly
`
`traded company, these false advertisements have a profound effect on interstate
`
`commerce.
`
`56.
`
`The above referenced false advertisements are material because they are
`
`likely to influence the ordering decisions of potential consumers to whom they are
`
`advertised.
`
`57.
`
`Upon information and belief, these false statements actually deceive, or
`
`have a tendency to deceive, a substantial segment of Plaintiffs’ customers and potential
`
`customers. This deception is material in that it is likely to influence the ordering decisions
`
`of Plaintiffs’ customers and potential customers.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 18
`
`58.
`
`These statements are likely to cause Plaintiffs injury because once a
`
`potential customer believes that Plaintiffs’ restaurant is closed and not taking online
`
`orders, that customer is:
`
`a) Less likely to ever seek food delivery or takeout from Plaintiffs, believing
`
`that the restaurant is closed and not taking online orders; and
`
`b) More likely to spend money with competing restaurants that Grubhub
`
`identifies as open and taking online orders instead.
`
`59.
`
`Defendant’s false and misleading advertising statements and omissions
`
`injure both consumers and the restaurants.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant’s false and misleading advertising statements and omissions
`
`violate the Lanham Act § 43(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a).
`
`61.
`
`Defendant has caused, and will continue to cause, immediate and
`
`irreparable injury to Plaintiff Piper Inn, including injury to their business, reputation, and
`
`goodwill, for which there is no adequate remedy at law. As such, Piper Inn is entitled to
`
`an injunction under 15 U.S.C. §1116 restraining Defendant, its agents, employees,
`
`representatives and all persons acting in concert with them from engaging in further acts
`
`of false advertising, and ordering removal of all Defendant’s false advertisements.
`
`62.
`
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from
`
`Defendant the damages sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of Defendant’s acts in violation
`
`of the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Plaintiffs are at present unable to ascertain the
`
`full extent of the monetary damages they have suffered by reason of Defendant’s acts.
`
`63.
`
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117, Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover from
`
`Defendant the gains, profits and advantages that they have obtained as a result of
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 18
`
`Defendant’s acts. Plaintiffs are at present unable to ascertain the full amount of the
`
`gains, profits and advantages Defendant has obtained by reason of its acts.
`
`64.
`
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1117, Plaintiffs are further entitled to recover the
`
`costs of this action. Defendant’s conduct was undertaken willfully and with the intention
`
`of causing confusion, mistake or deception, making this a case entitling Plaintiffs to recover
`
`a multiplier of actual damages, additional damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees and
`
`costs.
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the class of similarly
`situated individuals, requests the Court to:
`1.
`Certify the case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure, designate Plaintiffs as representatives of the class and designate
`
`counsel of record as class counsel;
`
`2.
`
`Order Defendant to provide actual damages and equitable monetary
`
`relief (including restitution) to Plaintiffs and class members and/or order Defendant to
`
`disgorge profits they realized as a result of their unlawful conduct;
`
`3.
`4.
`
`Awarding treble damages pursuant to the Lanham Act;
`Declare Defendant’s conduct unlawful and enter an order enjoining
`
`Defendant from continuing to engage in the conduct alleged herein;
`
`5.
`
`For both pre and post-judgment interest at the maximum allowable rate
`
`on any amounts awarded;
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`For costs of the proceedings herein;
`
`For reasonable attorneys’ fees as allowed by law; and
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-01327-NYW-NRN Document 74 Filed 09/19/22 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 18
`
`8.
`
`Award such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the
`
`circumstances.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class of all others similarly situated,
`hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal
`Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`DATED: September 19, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`THE LAW OFFICES OF ROSS ZIEV, P.C.
`
`By:
`
` /s/ Ross Ziev
`Ross Ziev, #43181
`6795 East Tennessee Avenue,
`Suite 210
`Denver, CO 80224
`Phone: (303) 351-2567
`Fax: (720) 669-6992
`ross@helpincolorado.com
`
`LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON P.C.
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Laura L. Sheets
`Laura L. Sheets, #P63270 (Admitted
`Pro Hac Vice)
`975 East Jefferson Avenue
`Detroit, Michigan 48207
`Phone: (313) 392-0015
`Fax: (313) 392-0025
`lsheets@lsccounsel.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

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