throbber
Case 1:15-cv-07381-LB Document 35 Filed 11/01/17 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 223
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT.COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`--------------------------------------------------------------){
`ROSLYN WILLIAMS, CHAIM LERMAN
`CHRISTINA GONZALEZ, AND JAMES VORRASI,
`Individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated,
`
`BROO/(L YN OFF/
`
`· Plah1tJff~, :. ·
`
`· , .
`
`15 CV 07381 (SJ)
`
`ORDER ON MOTION
`TO DISMISS
`
`- against -
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`--------------------------------------------------------------){
`
`JOHNSON, Senior District Judge: .
`
`, : : l · 1 'T ()''.
`Apple 'Inc. ·('.'Apple") moves to dismiss the complaint of Roslyn Williams,
`
`- . ! ., ,, .~... "'
`
`'· '.
`
`. •
`
`,
`
`.,
`
`. ! ;.
`
`Chaim Lerman, Christina Gonzalez, and James Vorrasi (collectively, "Plaintiffs").
`Williams, Lerman, and Gonzalez (the "Ne~ York Plaintiffs") sued Apple under New
`York's Consumer Protecticm · 1aWk :·~Vorrasi ·sued Apple under New Jersey's
`
`Consumer Fraud Act. Based on the submissions of the parties and for the reasons
`
`stated below, the motion to dismiss is DENIED.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`Plaintiffs .claim they were deceived into downloading iOS 9, an Apple
`
`operating system, which· either. completely crippled or greatly diminished the value
`( ·. : (·
`~ Y:
`.
`. ·~
`.
`~
`..
`..
`..
`of their iPhone 4s devices. Plaintiffs ·claim that they were made to believe that iOS
`
`P-c>49
`
`1
`
`: .: :: ': ('.
`
`. ,· . . ..
`
`

`

`., .
`Case 1:15-cv-07381-LB Document 35 Filed 11/01/17 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 224
`
`"" ·~ j s \./J-J' '
`
`.I
`
`•
`
`• ....
`
`'
`
`'<~I
`
`' •
`
`·,
`
`. 1
`
`.. :.
`
`.
`'
`9 was either necessary to the continued security and operation of their devices or that
`
`it would improve their devices' operation. They claim Apple knew from its own
`
`internal testing that iOS 9 would destroy or greatly diminish the value of iPhone 4s
`
`devices. Yet, Apple not only failed to inform them of this eventuality, but also
`
`actively marketed iOS 9 to iPhone 4s owners, sending update alerts to their devices.
`
`r.
`
`• •
`
`~I"'• l ,• '
`
`, :.
`
`~ 1
`
`'
`
`•
`
`/
`
`t
`
`I
`
`When ·Plaintiffs followed the alerts, they were led to a download screen that
`
`stated the following:
`
`With this update your iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch [will] become
`more intelligent and proactive with powerful search and improved
`Siri features·.~. And, built ·iri apps become more powerful with
`detailed transit information in Maps, a redesigned Notes app, and
`an all-new News app. And improvement~ at the foundation of the
`operating system enhance performance; improve security and give
`you up to an hour of extra battery life.
`
`(Docket Number ("Okt..1No.") Dkt. No. 30-2.; Ex.: 5). Plaintiffs claim that no
`
`reasonable consumer would have thought that this message meant that iOS 9 would
`
`destroy their device. .
`
`FollowingHb¢::dQwnload scr.een; Plaintiffs encountered the iOS 9 User
`
`{
`
`• .... \
`
`'
`
`\.
`
`'1
`
`•
`
`'
`
`Agreement. 1 The agreement claims that iOS 9 is being offered on an "AS IS" and
`
`"AS AVAILABLE" basis with "ALL FAUL TS AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF
`
`ANY KIND." (Dkt..No. 30-1,at ?)i(~mphasi~l'in~original). "INSTALLATION OF
`"'·:·
`!.~ •
`, ,· •:,
`l q ::Jp
`r:\ , i
`THIS iOS SOJ:TW ARE MAY AFFECT. THE AVAILABILITY AND USABILITY
`
`I~•
`
`1 It remains unclear how long this agreement would have been on the iPhone 4s's 3.5-inch screen;
`on a standard letter-size paper, the agreement is 11 pages long.
`
`2
`
`p.049
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-07381-LB Document 35 Filed 11/01/17 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 225
`
`. · . . •
`
`OF THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE, APPLICATIONS OR THIRD PARTY
`
`SERVICES, AS WELL AS APPLE PRODUCTS AND SERVICES." (!4.) The
`.
`.
`1:; ~ 1:
`..
`agreement further! state.s that the user ·be!ars the "SOLE RISK" of the satisfactory
`i
`quality, performance, accuracy and effort of iOS 9. (Id. at 6-7). Again, Plaintiffs
`
`claim that no reasonable consumer would haye thought that this agreement meant
`
`that iOS 9 would destroy their device.
`
`Gonzalez claims that after she downloaded iOS 9, her phone immediately
`
`"crashed and froze completely." (Dkt. No. 18, ~ 11, 22). She could not access any
`
`functions whatsoever,·nQt even the basic call and text features. (Id.) As a result, she
`.. ~ ',
`I {~ 1 ~
`(Ji
`',
`•
`,
`
`•
`
`had to purchase a new iPhone. Williams claims that although her device did not quite
`
`'give up the ghost' like Gonzalez's, so many of the device's core functions, like
`
`phone, text, and email, failed so frequently that the device was de facto unusable.
`. .
`.
`I ... · . ~ .
`I· f• : '
`.,'
`·,
`~ I
`(Id. at~ 22). As''a result, she als9 purchased"a new iPhone. Lerman and Vorrasi
`
`j ) •
`
`•
`
`•
`
`I
`
`• • '.
`
`•: '."
`
`claim to have experienced the same problems as Williams but simply refused to
`
`spend hundreds of dollars on a new device. (Id.)
`
`Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims arguing, among other things,
`
`that the iOS 9 User Agreement bars any suit regarding the satisfactory operation of
`
`iOS 9 or its compatibility with any device. Plaintiffs assert that nothing in the
`agreement disclafmro~''h\ilke·~\a; user :~w~e of the potential that iOS 9 will destroy
`
`their device, nor should a mere disclaimer entitle Apple to intentionally damage their
`
`devices under the guise of an update that will "enhance performance."
`
`'·•
`~ 1"1 L
`
`p.049
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-07381-LB Document 35 Filed 11/01/17 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 226
`
`• .. · ...
`
`II.
`
`Discussion
`
`A.
`
`Standards of review
`
`To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient facts that,
`: .
`. ~
`·,:·:;
`.
`.
`~ ~
`if accepted as true, would "state: a claim to relief that is plausible on its face."
`
`' \
`
`'.
`
`Ashcroft v. Igbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is facially plausible where "the
`
`plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
`
`that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The
`
`complaint must contain "more than labels" and conclusory assertions. Bell Atl.
`
`Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
`
`. . . ' ": ~ . : . : !; .
`
`I
`
`;
`
`I
`
`'
`
`o
`
`.,
`
`' • ~: •: • \
`
`B.
`N.Y. G.B.L. §§ 349 & 350
`New York prohibits "t d]eceptive ·acts or practices in the conduct of any
`business, trade or:·commerce o{in' the'fu~isH1Wg·~tany service in this state." N.Y.
`
`G.B.L. § 349. New York also prohibits ."[f]alse advertising in the conduct of any
`
`business, trade, or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in this state." N. Y.
`
`G.B.L. § 350. To prove a violation of Section 349 or 350, a plaintiff must show that
`
`the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that was materially misleading
`
`and that the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of that deceptive act or practice.
`
`See Oswego Laborers'.Local 214 Pension Fund.v. Marine Midland Bank, 85 N.Y.2d
`. ~ . . . : . f. ~ ;
`.
`•
`.
`
`~
`
`·'· . •.,
`
`'
`
`'
`
`'
`
`·'• ...
`,'.0.Ll
`·ip:
`
`•
`
`P-<>49
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-07381-LB Document 35 Filed 11/01/17 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 227
`
`20, 25 (1995); Koch v. Aker. Merrall & Condit Co., 18 N.Y.3d 940, 941 (2012); see
`
`also Orlander v. Staples·. Inc., 802 F.3d 289, 300 (2d Cir. 2015).2
`
`A practice. is·mat~riallymisleading where it is"~'likely to mislead a reasonable
`
`consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances." Stutman v. Chem. Bank, 95
`
`N.Y.2d 24, 29 (2000). A plaintiff need not prove that the "defendant acted
`
`intentionally or with scienter." Watts v. _Jacks~n Hewitt Tax Service Inc., 579 F.
`.
`Supp. 2d 3 34, 34 7 (E.D .N. Y. 2008). But there can be no claim of deceptive practices
`
`'
`
`"when the alleged practice was fully disclosed." Id.
`
`In assessing the adequacy of pleadings under Sections 349 and 350, courts
`.
`,
`may take into account the parties' relative bargaining positions and access to
`
`information. See Gaidon v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 94 N.Y.2d 330, 343-44
`
`· , '
`
`·!
`
`(1999); Sims v. First Consumers Nat'l Bank, 303 A.D.2d 288, 290 (N.Y. App. Div.
`2003). For example,-~wnen a defendant excfusively possesses information that a
`
`· 1•;•1.)· 1 ·-n·~t-1
`
`Ir;;';>
`
`•
`
`' 'll;'\)
`
`·,;.;··'>
`
`. . ,
`
`reasonable consumer would want to know and could not discover without difficulty,
`
`failure to disclose can constitute a deceptive or misleading practice. See Oswego, 85
`
`N.Y.2d at 27; Watts, 579 F. Supp.)d at 347.
`: .
`.
`'
`~
`An injury under Sections 349 and 350 must be "actual, although not
`
`.
`
`\
`
`~-·.,
`
`necessarily pecuniary, harm." Oswego, 85 N.Y.2d.at 26; see also Small v. Lorillard
`
`Tobacco Co., 94 N.Y.2d 43, 56 (1999); Orlander, 802 F.3d at 302. And although
`
`2 Apple does not dispute that th~ practices at issue were consumer oriented. As such, this Court
`assumes Plaintiffs have properly pleaded that element.
`.. :~. s :·-r:
`, ..
`
`P--049
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-07381-LB Document 35 Filed 11/01/17 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 228
`
`"reliance is not an element of a § 349 claim," Stutman, 95 N.Y.2d at 29, a plaintiff
`
`must prove that the material misrepresentation or omission caused the injury. See
`
`Oswego, 85 N.Y.2d at 26; Stutman, 95 N.Y.2d at 30.
`
`I .
`
`Material ~isrepresentation
`
`The New York Plaintiffs alleged that the download screen makes material
`
`misrepresentations oy stating that }OS 9 will "enhance performance" and make their
`
`devices "more intelligent" when iOS 9 actually destroys (or at least greatly
`
`diminishes the value of) iPhone 4s devices. This allegation is sufficient to satisfy the
`
`material misrepresentation element.,
`
`Alternatively, the New York Plaintiffs also 'satisfied this element by alleging
`
`that iOS 9 was harmful due to factors within Apple's control and that Apple knew
`
`about its harmfulness from pre-relea5e testing yet failed to disclose that harm. See
`
`Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. ofN.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326-27 (2002).
`
`Apple argues that neither of these constitutes a material misrepresentation.
`
`First, Apple claims, cJ~~p~te its. down~oad ,~creen representations, its disclaimers bar
`the instant claim~~· .T3ut Apple knows. well that disclaimers cannot, at the motion to
`
`dismiss stage, bar a Section 349 suit because disclaimers do not establish a defense
`
`as a matter of law. See Koch, 802 F.3d at 941; Goshen, 98 N.Y.2d at 326; Gaidon,
`94 N.Y.2d at 345';· ~Koch v. ·Greenberg, 626 Fed. App'x 335, 340 (2d Cir. 2015)
`
`(summary' order).
`
`6
`
`P-049
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-07381-LB Document 35 Filed 11/01/17 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 229
`
`Second, Apple claims.the iOS 9 User Agreement fully discloses the allegedly
`
`•
`
`'
`
`.. _. ~ ',. !
`
`!
`
`• •
`
`. . .
`
`•.
`
`·- • •
`
`deceptive conduct, 'foreclosing any claim of misrepresentation. This argument is a
`
`variant of the first. Apple is arguing that no reasonable consumer would have been
`
`misled by its conduct in light o~ the disclosures made in the agreement. But by this
`
`Court's reading,.-~ reasonable· consumer,. could find that the agreement does not
`
`-
`
`.
`
`.··
`
`.
`
`.:
`
`d
`
`disclose that the iOS 9 software would (or could) render their iPhone 4s inoperable.
`
`Furthermore, the agreement appears directly after the download screen. A
`
`reasonable consumer under these circumstances would read the agreement in light of
`
`the download screen's representations, concluding that iOS 9 was safe - after all,
`
`Apple told consumers to· download it for the express purpose of improving their
`
`devices.
`Finally, ApJ1~ argues that th~ representations in the download screen were
`
`I .
`
`not misleading. The download screen says "improvements at the foundation of the
`
`operating system enhance performance, improve security and give you up to an hour
`'
`.• ~.. ....
`"..
`.
`.. ' 1 l:··1·,
`11J,'' :
`of extra batterf life." {Dkt. No. 30-2~ :at Ex. ·s) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs allege
`
`that the ·phrase "enhance performance"· is misleading since the update actually
`
`destroyed their devices. Apple claims that Plaintiffs' isolation of "enhance
`
`performance" inappropriately takes that phrase ~but ~f context. But the Court is hard-
`
`pressed to find any context which makes "enhance performance" compatible with
`
`"destroys iPhone 4s devices."
`
`P-049
`
`7
`
`. ,·
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-07381-LB Document 35 Filed 11/01/17 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 230
`
`Conveniently
`
`then, Apple alternatively claims
`
`iOS 9 did enhance
`
`performance: by improving security and extending battery life. In essence, Apple
`
`claims that "enhance pe1Jormance" has no me~ing by itself. This is a shocking
`
`.
`
`..
`
`l
`
`argument to make on the heels of a claim that "enhance performance" was taken out
`
`of context - and·: therefore had at least some meaning, even if different than the
`
`meaning ascribed to· it by Plaintiffs. But the contradiction is of no moment. The
`
`plain language of the download screen precludes such an interpretation. The
`
`download screen uses the conjunction and with a comma. It is reasonable to think
`
`that "enhances performance, improves security and [extends battery life]," means
`
`that the download will do all three~
`
`, ·1
`
`Even if "enhance performance" only meant improving security and extending
`
`battery life, that argument still does not defeat the New York Plaintiffs' claims since
`
`inducing a consumer to doWI1load iOS 9 while knowing that it will destroy their
`
`~
`
`I
`
`t , l
`
`. l
`
`,
`
`'
`
`device implicates Sections 349 and 350.
`
`2: .. 'fojUry ..
`
`'
`
`I
`
`'1 [)'' ·
`
`';I ;
`
`1:: l
`
`\ ' .
`
`The New York Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded injury in that they claim
`
`iOS 9 irreversibly3 destroyed, or greatly diminished the value of, their device.
`
`Apple's opposition to this prong is without ment.
`
`3 It is important to note that the iOS 9 download was irreversible. Once applied to a device,
`Plaintiffs could not revert to their prior operating system .
`
`. , . ; ,' ~
`
`P-049
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-07381-LB Document 35 Filed 11/01/17 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 231
`
`.l
`
`3.
`
`Causation
`
`Finally, the New York Plaintiffs have sufficiently pleaded causation. Apple
`
`misled them into believing iOS 9 would :enhance the performance of their devices
`
`through representations it made in its download screen. As a result, they downloaded
`
`the software, which destroyed, or greatly diminished the value of, their devices.
`
`Apple concedes Plaintiffs encountered the download screen prior to downloading
`
`iOS 9 and that it makes· the above representations. As such, Apple's causation
`
`arguments are without merit. Therefore, the New York Plaintiffs' Sections 349 and
`
`350 claims are plausible.
`1.'.
`I.·.,
`,· .
`
`C.
`New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("CFA") claims
`To establish a: Consumer Fraud Act claim in New Jersey, a plaintiff must
`plead: (1) untawful conduct!; (2) ~certMnab)1~1·i1·ass·; and (3) a causal relationship
`
`between the unlawful conduct and the ascertainable loss. See Bosland v. Warnock
`
`I
`
`Dodge, Inc., 197 N.J. 543, 557 (2009). UnlaWful conduct is any "unconscionable
`
`commercial practice,
`
`deception, · - fraud,
`
`false
`
`pretense,
`
`false
`
`promise,
`
`misrepresentation, or knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of any
`
`material fact with intent that oth~rs rely ... whether or not any person has in fact been
`
`misled, deceived ~r dru;naged thereby.", ~LJ.S.A. 56:8-2. The prime ingredient is the
`
`capacity to mislead. See Fenwick v. KayAm. Jeep, Inc., 72 N.J. 372, 378 (1977).
`
`p.049
`
`9
`• ·~·;i . : ~ i.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-07381-LB Document 35 Filed 11/01/17 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 232
`
`.
`
`:
`
`., t
`
`For affirmative acts of unlawful conduct, intent is not an element. See Cox
`
`, ; I
`
`.
`
`\
`
`v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 138 N.J. 2, 17-18 (1994). But for omissions, plaintiffs must
`
`allege that the defendant acted with knowledge; and intent is an element. Id.
`
`Ascertainable loss is defined as a·definite, certain and measurable loss, rather
`
`than one that is merely theoretical. See Thiedemann v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC.,
`
`183 N.J. 234, 248 (2004). However, the loss need not yet have been experienced as
`
`an out-of-pocket loss to the plaintiff. Id.· at 248-49; see also, Cox, 138 N.J. at 22-23
`
`(noting that to demonstrate "loss'' a victim need not have actually spent money to
`
`perform repairs to correct defendant's errors).
`
`CF A claims:.must be pleaded with sufficient particularity and according to
`
`Rule 9. See Maniscalco v. Brother Intern. Corp., 627 F.Supp.2d 494, 500 (D.N.J.
`
`2009); see also FED. R. C1v. P. 9(b). at 500, 503. Therefore, Plaintiffs must "(l) detail
`
`the statements (or omissions) that the plaintiffcontends are fraudulent, (2) identify
`.. ~ .
`•. ·11'
`..
`.
`.
`. . : , . :ii· I
`'' .
`•
`; .,
`rl1
`the speaker; (3) state where and when the'statements (or omissions) were made, and
`
`(4) explain why the statements (or' 1 omissions) are fraudulent."
`
`L.S. v.
`
`Webloyalty.com, Inc., 673 F. App'x 100, 104 (2d Cir. 2016) (quoting Fin. Guar. Ins.
`
`Co. v. Putnam Advisory Co., LLC, 783 F:3d 3·~5, 403 (2d Cir. 2015). However, no
`
`special specificity is necessary for pleading ascertainable loss, knowledge or intent;
`
`each may be pleaded generally. See Maniscalco, 627 F.Supp.2d at 500.
`
`Vorrasi's Cf'!k~Wtim ii~ 1~iit~aliy 1~·mirrg} image of the New York Plaintiffs'
`
`•
`
`I
`
`claims. He details the download screen misrepresentations and even provides a
`
`P-049
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-07381-LB Document 35 Filed 11/01/17 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 233
`
`' l • .
`
`picture of the image he encountered. He identifies Apple as the entity that made the
`
`misrepresentations. He alleges that he received the ·misrepresentations just before he
`:':t :·
`' f<~
`h-f~i;:.-~ .. 1
`; '
`t • j 'l
`( , '' ·\
`1 ~
`downloaded iOS 9,"within the first or second week after its release on September 16,
`
`I i .
`
`.
`
`2015. He alleges the reason the statements were fraudulent - the update does not
`
`enhance performance; it greatly diminished the value of iPhone 4s devices. He
`
`alleges that his! iPhone 4s de:vice was daµiaged and its value diminished. He also
`
`alleges that Apple conducted pre-release testing and therefore knew that iOS 9 would
`
`diminish the value of iPhone 4s devices. As such, according to Vorrasi, Apple
`
`knowingly omitted material information in violation of CF A. Without remarking on
`.
`'.
`
`the substantive sufficiency of his arguments, his pleading certainly satisfies the Rule
`
`9(b) particularity-pleading standard. See L.S. v. Webloyalty.com, Inc., 673 F. App'x
`
`at 104.
`
`; . .';~-
`t..
`·,: ~.::
`In terms of substance, Vorrasi' s claims are sufficient for the same reasons as
`
`.
`
`~.
`
`the New York Plaintiffs' claims.
`
`Vorrasi has pleaded an affirmative
`
`misrepresentation (false download screen statements); a knowing omission (Apple
`
`. ·,~' i
`:'I . .. ·.·, ' .
`~
`• ~ 'I •
`tested the product, knew it would harm 1Phone 4s devices and released it anyway);
`
`. .
`
`•
`
`•
`
`. '•.
`
`.
`
`• •
`
`'
`
`. .
`
`intent (Apple purposely induced him to download iOS 9 using update alerts);
`
`ascertainable loss (the value of his phone is diminished and he lost the benefit of his
`
`bargain); and causation (he download~d ios 9· ~fter being misled by the download
`
`screen and the damaged device was a direct result of the deception). Having satisfied
`
`; .
`
`p.049
`
`' • .
`
`·:
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-07381-LB Document 35 Filed 11/01/17 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 234
`
`Rule 9(b) and having sufficiently pleaded a prima facie case for a violation of CFA,
`
`there seems to be no reason why Vorrasi should not reach discovery.
`
`Naturally, Apple disagrees. But Apple's retorts are more smoke than fire.
`
`Apple simply regurgitates the same arguments that failed against the New York
`
`Plaintiffs: the iOS 9 User Agreement bars the claim and the download screen makes
`
`no misrepresentations. But now, Apple adds two new arguments: Vorrasi's omission
`
`claim does not properly plead knowledge, and does not plead quantifiable loss. As
`
`explained above, each of these arguments are without merit.
`
`Conclusion
`
`'1
`Si
`':'r.
`b •
`For the foregoing reasons, this Court DENIES Apple's motion to dismiss, as
`
`Plaintiffs' claims are properly pleaded.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: October 26,2017
`Brooklyn, NY
`
`•
`
` . v: vi'j (it I'f
`
`/s/ USDJ STERLING JOHNSON, JR.
`Sterling Johnson, Jr^
`
`P-049
`
`12
`
`

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