Case 3:22-cv-01110-FLW-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/01/22 Page 1 of 12 PageID: 1
`
`
`
`Eric B. Levine, Esq. – EL(0190)
`LINDABURY, McCORMICK, ESTABROOK & COOPER
`53 Cardinal Drive
`P.O. Box 2369
`Westfield, New Jersey 07091
`(908) 233-6800
`elevine@lindabury.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tri Health Solutions, LLC
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`------------------------------------------------------------------------
`TRI HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NU ERA BENEFITS AGENCY, INC., LOUIS DELUCA,
`
`individually and in his capacity as an agent of Nu Era
`
`Benefits Agency,
`Inc., ELIZABETH DELUCA,
`individually and in her capacity as an agent of Nu Era
`Benefits Agency,
`Inc., and JOHN POULAKOS,
`individually and in his capacity as an agent of Nu Era
`Benefits Agency, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Tri Health Solutions, LLC, by and through its attorneys, Lindabury, McCormick,
`
`Estabrook & Cooper, P.C., file this Complaint and Jury Demand against Defendants, Nu Era
`
`Benefits Agency, Inc., Louis DeLuca, individually and in his capacity as an agent of Nu Era
`
`Benefits Agency, Inc, Elizabeth DeLuca, individually and in her capacity as an agent of Nu Era
`
`Benefits Agency, Inc., and John Poulakos, individually and in his capacity as an agent of Nu Era
`
`Benefits Agency, Inc. (collectively hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1. This case involves an action against Nu Era Benefits Agency, Inc., an alter ego of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Eric B. Levine, Esq. – EL(0190)
`LINDABURY, McCORMICK, ESTABROOK & COOPER
`53 Cardinal Drive
`P.O. Box 2369
`Westfield, New Jersey 07091
`(908) 233-6800
`elevine@lindabury.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tri Health Solutions, LLC
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`------------------------------------------------------------------------
`TRI HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NU ERA BENEFITS AGENCY, INC., LOUIS DELUCA,
`
`individually and in his capacity as an agent of Nu Era
`
`Benefits Agency,
`Inc., ELIZABETH DELUCA,
`individually and in her capacity as an agent of Nu Era
`Benefits Agency,
`Inc., and JOHN POULAKOS,
`individually and in his capacity as an agent of Nu Era
`Benefits Agency, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Tri Health Solutions, LLC, by and through its attorneys, Lindabury, McCormick,
`
`Estabrook & Cooper, P.C., file this Complaint and Jury Demand against Defendants, Nu Era
`
`Benefits Agency, Inc., Louis DeLuca, individually and in his capacity as an agent of Nu Era
`
`Benefits Agency, Inc, Elizabeth DeLuca, individually and in her capacity as an agent of Nu Era
`
`Benefits Agency, Inc., and John Poulakos, individually and in his capacity as an agent of Nu Era
`
`Benefits Agency, Inc. (collectively hereinafter referred to as “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1. This case involves an action against Nu Era Benefits Agency, Inc., an alter ego of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-01110-FLW-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/01/22 Page 2 of 12 PageID: 2
`
`Employers Network Association, as well as Louis DeLuca, Elizabeth DeLuca, and John
`
`Poulakos, individually and as agents of Nu Era, based on Nu Era’s knowing and intentional
`
`failure to remit payment to Plaintiff, on behalf of ENA, for monies due and owing Plaintiff.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2. Plaintiff, Tri Health Solutions, LLC (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Tri Health”), having a place
`
`of business located at 212 Pine Beach, New Jersey 08840, is a business established for the
`
`purpose of marketing health plans to individuals, employers, and unions.
`
`3. Defendant, Nu Era Benefits Agency, Inc. (hereinafter “Nu Era”), having a place of business
`
`at 20 Madison Ave, Valhalla, New York 10535, is a business established for the purpose
`
`of providing enrollment, billing, and commission payment services.
`
`4. Upon information and belief, Louis DeLuca is the Owner, President or an Officer of Nu
`
`Era and resides at 551 N. Fort Lauderdale Beach Blvd. Apt. 2312, Ft. Lauderdale,
`
`Florida 33304.
`
`5. Upon information and belief, Elizabeth DeLuca is the Owner, President, Chairperson or an
`
`Officer of Nu Era and resides at 1106 Smith Ridge Road, New Canaan, Connecticut 06840.
`
`6. Upon information and belief, John Poulakos is an Officer of Nu Era and resides at 120
`
`Brandy Lane, Wappingers Falls, New York 12590.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7. Subject matter jurisdiction exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(1) because the
`
`amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is diversity of citizenship between
`
`Plaintiff, a citizen of the state of New Jersey; Nu Era, a citizen of the State of New York;
`
`Louis DeLuca, a citizen of the state of Florida; Elizabeth DeLuca, a citizen of the State of
`
`Connecticut; and John Poulakos, a citizen of the State of New York.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-01110-FLW-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/01/22 Page 3 of 12 PageID: 3
`
`8. Venue is appropriate in the District of New Jersey to 28 U.S.C. Section 1391(a) because
`
`Plaintiff is a New Jersey Limited Liability Corporation maintaining a principal place of
`
`business in New Jersey.
`
`9. Venue is also appropriate in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
`
`1391(b)(2) because a significant part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s
`
`claim occurred in the State of New Jersey.
`
`FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`10. Employers Network Association (hereinafter “ENA”), not named as a party in this
`
`Complaint and having a place of business at 20 Madison Ave., Valhalla, New York 10535,
`
`is in the business of buying co-op groups of various benefits and other jointly valued
`
`services and offering these benefits and services to individuals and groups.
`
`11. Elizabeth DeLuca is the President of ENA. Her husband, Louis DeLuca, is the Vice
`
`President of ENA. John Poulakos is an Officer of ENA.
`
`12. Plaintiff and ENA entered into a Marketing Agreement effective December 1, 2014 (the
`
`“Marketing Agreement”). The purpose of the Marketing Agreement was for Plaintiff to
`
`market to companies, partnerships, labor unions and individuals (clients) to join ENA and
`
`to participate Local Union No. 713’s health plans. Local Union No. 713 and ENA are
`
`parties to a collective bargaining agreement under the terms of which Local 713 offered
`
`health insurance and other benefits to members of ENA who joined Local Union No. 713.
`
`The Marketing Agreement states that Plaintiff was to be paid $15.00 for single health plans
`
`and $25.00 for all other classes in connection with Local 713 membership (hereinafter the
`
`“Monthly Commissions”).
`
`13. ENA utilized Nu Era to enroll new members in Local Union No. 713’s health plans, to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-01110-FLW-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/01/22 Page 4 of 12 PageID: 4
`
`process health insurance premium payments from new members, and to administer billing
`
`and pay commissions on behalf of ENA.
`
`14. Monthly Commissions due and owing to Plaintiff under the terms of the Marketing
`
`Agreement were remitted by Nu Era directly to Plaintiff (in the State of New Jersey) on
`
`behalf of ENA continuously from 2015 until July 2021.
`
`15. Upon information and belief, Louis DeLuca, Elizabeth DeLuca, and John Poulakos are the
`
`controlling members of Nu Era.
`
`16. Nu Era and ENA share the same address at 20 Madison Ave., Valhalla, New York 10535
`
`as their principal place of business.
`
`17. Upon information and belief, despite being named separate companies, ENA and Nu Era
`
`share an overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel.
`
`18. On or about April 24, 2019, Plaintiff filed an arbitration demand against ENA for breach
`
`of contract under the parties’ Marketing Agreement.
`
`19. Thereafter, the parties engaged in extensive discovery before both parties moved for
`
`summary judgment, with the arbitrator granting Plaintiff’s motion in part and denying
`
`ENA’s motion in late October 2021.
`
`20. On November 16, 2021, Arbitrator Francis Orlando issued a final award in favor of
`
`Plaintiff and against ENA for monies owed to Plaintiff under the terms of the Marketing
`
`Agreement through June 30, 2021 in the amount of $4,348,100.00, plus expenses in the
`
`amount of $12,528.78.
`
`21. Despite the issuance of the November 16th award and notwithstanding Plaintiff continuing
`
`to fulfill its obligations under the Marketing Agreement, Nu Era ceased making any
`
`monthly payments for Monthly Commissions to Plaintiff as of November 2021 to date.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-01110-FLW-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/01/22 Page 5 of 12 PageID: 5
`
`22. Plaintiff made multiple demands to ENA and Nu Era for payment of the Monthly
`
`Commissions due and owing Plaintiff, which based on information provided during the
`
`arbitration and the last payment made to Plaintiff amounts to approximately $180,000.00
`
`per month. Nu Era, Louis DeLuca, and John Poulakos. ENA, Nu Era, Louis DeLuca, and
`
`John Poulakos have been unresponsive to Plaintiff.
`
`23. Upon the issuance of Arbitrator Orlando’s award in favor of Plaintiff in late October , the
`
`Defendants ceased processing and remitting all Monthly Commission payments to
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`24. Arbitrator Orlando’s November 16, 2021 award was confirmed as a final judgment by way
`
`of Order entered by the New Jersey Superior Court on December 17, 2021 (hereinafter the
`
`“December 17th Judgment”).
`
`25. In correspondence dated December 20, 2021, Plaintiff served ENA with a copy of the
`
`December 17th Judgment confirming the final arbitration award.
`
`26. In correspondence dated January 21, 2022, Plaintiff served Nu Era with a certified copy of
`
`the December 17th Judgment confirming the final arbitration award.
`
`27. Plaintiff made multiple demands for payment on the December 17th Judgment in the
`
`amount of $4,360,628.78 to ENA, Nu Era, Louis DeLuca, and John Poulakos. ENA, Nu
`
`Era, Louis DeLuca, and John Poulakos have been unresponsive to Plaintiff.
`
`28. In failing to process the Monthly Commission payments due and owing to Plaintiff under
`
`the Marketing Agreement and the December 17th judgment, as well as ignoring Plaintiff’s
`
`demands for payment, Defendants are actively assisting ENA in avoiding its on-going
`
`obligation to remit payment to Plaintiff in accordance with the Marketing Agreement as
`
`well as the Court’s December 17th Judgment by holding ENA’s assets under the guise of a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-01110-FLW-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/01/22 Page 6 of 12 PageID: 6
`
`separate corporation.
`
`29. Defendants are actively assisting ENA in avoiding its obligation to remit Monthly
`
`Commissions to Plaintiff in accordance with the Marketing Agreement (as of November
`
`2021 to date) by holding ENA’s assets under the guise of a separate corporation.
`
`30. As a result of Defendants’ failure to remit payment to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been damaged
`
`and will continue to suffer damage.
`
`FIRST COUNT
`(Alter Ego)
`
`31. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28 of this
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`32. Louis DeLuca is the Vice President of ENA. His wife, Elizabeth DeLuca, is the President
`
`of ENA.
`
`33. Upon information and belief, John Poulakos is an Officer of ENA.
`
`34. Upon information and belief, Louis DeLuca is the Owner., President or an Officer of Nu
`
`Era. His wife, Elizabeth DeLuca is the Owner, President, Chairperson or Officer of Nu
`
`Era.
`
`35. John Poulakos is an Officer of Nu Era.
`
`36. Nu Era and ENA share the same address at 20 Madison Ave., Valhalla, New York 10535
`
`as their principal place of business.
`
`37. Upon information and belief, Nu Era and ENA contain an overlap in ownership, officers,
`
`directors, and employees/personnel.
`
`38. Upon information and belief, Nu Era and ENA do not follow corporate formalities and
`
`commingle their assets.
`
`39. Upon information and belief, Louis DeLuca and Elizabeth DeLuca exercise complete
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-01110-FLW-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/01/22 Page 7 of 12 PageID: 7
`
`domination over Nu Era.
`
`40. Nu Era is a mere instrumentality, agent, and alter ego of ENA.
`
`41. Nu Era has actual and/or constructive knowledge of the terms of the Marketing Agreement
`
`and the December 17th Judgment, as well as the on-going obligation to remit payment of
`
`the Monthly Commissions to Plaintiff from the funds collected from ENA members who
`
`purchase health benefits from Local Union No. 713.
`
`42. Notwithstanding such notice, the Defendants have willfully and intentionally ceased
`
`processing and remitting payment of the Monthly Commission payments to Plaintiff upon
`
`the issuance of Arbitrator Orlando’s summary judgment ruling in favor of Plaintiff, which
`
`ruling has since been reduced to an unappealable judgment in favor of Plaintiff.
`
`43. Defendants are actively assisting ENA in avoiding its obligation to remit payment to
`
`Plaintiff in accordance with the Court’s December 17th Judgment by holding ENA’s assets
`
`under the guise of a separate corporation by diverting monies that are the property of .
`
`44. Defendants are actively assisting ENA in avoiding its obligation to remit Monthly
`
`Commissions to Plaintiff in accordance with the Marketing Agreement (as of November
`
`2021 to date) by holding ENA’s assets under the guise of a separate corporation and by
`
`diverting to either Defendant themselves or third parties the Plaintiff’s property to with a
`
`portion of funds collected representing the Monthly Commissions owed to Plaintiff.
`
`45. As a result of Defendants’ scheme with ENA to avoid ENA’s obligation to remit payment
`
`to Plaintiff, Plaintiff has been damaged.
`
`SECOND COUNT
` (Conversion)
`
`46. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 45 of this
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-01110-FLW-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/01/22 Page 8 of 12 PageID: 8
`
`47. A final award in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $4,348,100.00, plus expenses in the
`
`amount of $12,528.78, was issued by Arbitrator Francis Orlando on November 16, 2021.
`
`48. Arbitrator Orlando’s November 16, 2021 award was confirmed as a final judgment by way
`
`of Order entered by the New Jersey Superior Court on December 17, 2021.
`
`49. Plaintiff made multiple demands on Defendants for the remittance of payment pursuant to
`
`the Marketing Agreement as well as the Court’s December 17, 2021 Order.
`
`50. Defendants have refused to remit payment to Plaintiff in accordance with the December
`
`17, 2021 Order and have ceased communications with Plaintiff altogether.
`
`51. Defendants are actively assisting ENA in exercising dominion and control over and
`
`withholding assets that legally belong to Plaintiff under the guise of a separate corporation.
`
`52. Defendants’ conduct amounts to a reckless, or intentional and willful disregard of
`
`Plaintiff’s possessory rights pursuant to the Court’s December 17, 2021 Order and the
`
`Marketing Agreement.
`
`53. By failing to remit payment to Plaintiff, Defendants have exercised unauthorized dominion
`
`over Plaintiff’s assets.
`
`54. Defendants’ retention and misuse of Plaintiff’s assets for their own purposes was
`
`unauthorized and clearly not intended to benefit Plaintiff but, rather Defendants.
`
`55. Through their access to Plaintiff’s assets as described above, Defendants have exercised
`
`dominion and control over property belonging to Plaintiff thereby interfering with
`
`Plaintiff’s right of possession to same.
`
`56. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conversion of Plaintiff’s assets,
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged, and continues to be damaged.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-01110-FLW-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/01/22 Page 9 of 12 PageID: 9
`
`THIRD COUNT
`(Fraudulent Conveyance)
`
`57. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 55 of this
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`58. Defendants are aware of ENA’s obligation to remit payment to Plaintiff in accordance with
`
`the parties’ Marketing Agreement.
`
`59. Defendants’ holding of ENA’s assets and their failure to remit payment to Plaintiff in
`
`accordance with the terms of the parties’ Marketing Agreement is being done with the
`
`intent to prevent, hinder, delay or defraud Plaintiff.
`
`60. Defendants are aware that a Judgment was entered against ENA on December 17, 2021 in
`
`the amount of $4,360,628.78.
`
`61. Defendants’ holding of ENA’s assets and their failure to remit payment to Plaintiff in
`
`accordance with the December 17th Judgment is being done with the intent to prevent,
`
`hinder, delay or defraud Plaintiff.
`
`62. Defendants have entered into a scheme with ENA to transfer ENA’s assets to Defendants
`
`in an effort to avoid payment of the December 17, 2021 Judgment.
`
`FOURTH COUNT
`(Civil Conspiracy)
`
`63. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 63 of this
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`64. Defendants were aware that monies are owed to the Plaintiff pursuant to both the Marketing
`
`Agreement and the December 17th Judgment.
`
`65. Defendants entered into an express or implied agreement with each other and ENA for the
`
`purpose of committing the foregoing unlawful acts against Plaintiff.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-01110-FLW-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/01/22 Page 10 of 12 PageID: 10
`
`66. Defendants took an overt act in furtherance of the agreement by holding ENA’s assets and
`
`failing to remit payment to Plaintiff in accordance with the Marketing Agreement and the
`
`December 17th Judgment.
`
`67. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ conduct.
`
`FIFTH COUNT
`(Aiding and Abetting)
`
`68. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 68 of this
`
`Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
`
`69. On December 17, 2021, a Judgment was entered against ENA in favor of Plaintiff in the
`
`amount of $4,360,628.78.
`
`70. Defendants were aware that monies are owed to the Plaintiff by ENA pursuant to both the
`
`Marketing Agreement and the December 17th Judgment.
`
`71. Neither ENA nor Nu Era have remitted payment to Plaintiff pursuant to the Marketing
`
`Agreement or the December 17th Judgment despite repeated demands for same from
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`72. Defendants pursued a common plan to hold ENA’s assets and not remit payment to
`
`Plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the Marketing Agreement and pursuant to the
`
`December 17th Judgment through an intentional combination of active participation, aid,
`
`encouragement or ratification.
`
`73. As a proximate result of the actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been deprived of its
`
`assets and has suffered damages.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-01110-FLW-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/01/22 Page 11 of 12 PageID: 11
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as
`
`in the form of compensatory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest and costs; attorney’s fees;
`
`and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
`
`LINDABURY, McCORMICK,
`ESTABROOK & COOPER, P.C
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: Eric B. Levine
`
`
`Eric B. Levine
`
`LINDABURY, McCORMICK,
`
`ESTABROOK & COOPER
`
`53 Cardinal Drive
`
`P.O. Box 2369
`
`Westfield, New Jersey 07091
`
`(908) 233-6800
`
`elevine@lindabury.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tri Health
`
`Solutions, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 28, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:22-cv-01110-FLW-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/01/22 Page 12 of 12 PageID: 12
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff demands trial by jury for all of the issues a jury properly may decide, and for all
`
`of the requested relief a jury may award.
`
`DESIGNATION OF TRIAL COUNSEL
`
`Plaintiff hereby designates Eric B. Levine, Esq. as trial counsel.
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that to the best of my information, knowledge and belief, the matter in
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`controversy is not the subject of any other pending or contemplated action or arbitration in any
`
`other court or proceeding, and that no other parties should be joined in the above action at this
`
`time.
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 28, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LINDABURY, McCORMICK,
`ESTABROOK & COOPER, P.C
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`By: Eric B. Levine
`
`
`
`
`
`Eric B. Levine
`
`LINDABURY, McCORMICK,
`
`ESTABROOK & COOPER
`
`53 Cardinal Drive
`
`P.O. Box 2369
`
`Westfield, New Jersey 07091
`
`(908) 233-6800
`
`elevine@lindabury.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tri Health
`
`Solutions, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
