Case 7:22-cv-03394-PMH Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 1 of 11
`
`
`
`STILLMAN LEGAL PC
`42 Broadway, 12th Floor
`New York, New York 10004
`www.FightForUrRights.com
`212-203-2417
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`BLANCA JEREZ
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
` -v-
`
`DEMARIA'S HEMLOCK HILL FARM,
`LLC (DBA Hemlock Hill Farm) JOHN N.
`DEMARIA and LAURA DEMARIA, in
`their individual and professional capacity,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`1.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`Plaintiff BLANCA JEREZ (collectively “Plaintiff”) brings this action under the
`
`Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b) in order to remedy Defendants’
`
`wrongful withholding of Plaintiffs' lawfully earned wages and overtime compensation.
`
`Plaintiff also bring these claims under New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), Article 6, §§ 190 et
`
`seq., and Article 19 §§ 650 et seq. as well as the supporting New York State Department of
`
`Labor Regulations for violations of minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay,
`
`misappropriation of tips, and notice and record-keeping requirements.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STILLMAN LEGAL PC
`42 Broadway, 12th Floor
`New York, New York 10004
`www.FightForUrRights.com
`212-203-2417
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`BLANCA JEREZ
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
` -v-
`
`DEMARIA'S HEMLOCK HILL FARM,
`LLC (DBA Hemlock Hill Farm) JOHN N.
`DEMARIA and LAURA DEMARIA, in
`their individual and professional capacity,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`1.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`Plaintiff BLANCA JEREZ (collectively “Plaintiff”) brings this action under the
`
`Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b) in order to remedy Defendants’
`
`wrongful withholding of Plaintiffs' lawfully earned wages and overtime compensation.
`
`Plaintiff also bring these claims under New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), Article 6, §§ 190 et
`
`seq., and Article 19 §§ 650 et seq. as well as the supporting New York State Department of
`
`Labor Regulations for violations of minimum wages, overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay,
`
`misappropriation of tips, and notice and record-keeping requirements.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 7:22-cv-03394-PMH Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 2 of 11
`
`
`
`SUMMARY
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff was employed by Defendants, DEMARIA'S HEMLOCK HILL FARM,
`
`LLC, JOHN N. DEMARIA and LAURA DEMARIA (collectively “Defendants”) as a clerk at
`
`the butcher shop for Defendants' farm.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs' job duties included, but were not limited to, feed the animals.
`
`The farm had a time clock system intended for employees to clock in their hours.
`
`Plaintiff was not paid properly for the entire number of hours she worked.
`
`Plaintiff worked long hours exceeding fifty-four (54) hours per week for
`
`Defendants.
`
`7.
`
`Defendants have repeatedly deprived Plaintiff of her lawfully earned wages,
`
`overtime and spread-of-hours premium.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants also repeatedly delayed paying Plaintiffs their lawfully earned wages
`
`even after continuous reminders from Plaintiff.
`
`9.
`
`The Individual Defendants are associated and are joint employers, act in the
`
`interest of each other with respect to Corporate Defendants' employees, and have common
`
`policies and practices as to wages and hours.
`
`10.
`
`Defendants accepted the benefits of Plaintiffs' labor, and in return Plaintiff
`
`received less than what was legally required in compensation.
`
`11.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered great hardship and
`
`damages.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 7:22-cv-03394-PMH Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 3 of 11
`
`
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Federal Question Jurisdiction and Supplemental Jurisdiction
`
`12.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1331 because the civil action herein arises under the laws of the United States, namely,
`
`the Fair Labor Standards Act and 29 U.S.C. §201 et seq. Additionally, this Court also has
`
`supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §1367.
`
`Personal Jurisdiction
`
`13.
`
`This Court may properly maintain personal jurisdiction over Defendants under
`
`Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Defendants’ contacts with this state and
`
`this judicial district are sufficient for exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants so as to comply
`
`with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`
`Venue
`
`14.
`
`Venue is proper in the Southern District of New York under 8 U.S.C. §§1391 (b)
`
`(1) and (2) because Defendants reside and conduct business in this judicial district and because
`
`a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred in
`
`this judicial district.
`
`BLANCA JEREZ
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`(Plaintiffs)
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Blanca Jerez (“Jerez”) is an adult individual residing in the state of New
`
`York, Westchester County.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`Jerez is a covered employee within the meaning of the FLSA and the NYLL.
`
`Jerez worked for Defendants from June 11, 2019 until March 16, 2022.
`
`3
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 7:22-cv-03394-PMH Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 4 of 11
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Jerez was employed at Hemlock Hill Farm a farm owned by Defendants, located
`
`at 500 Croton Avenue Cortlandt, NY 10567.
`
`19.
`
`20.
`
`Jerez's duties included, but were not limited to: feeding the farm animals
`
`During the period of her employment with Defendants, Jerez worked six days per
`
`week for an average of nine hours per day. From the second week of January 2022 until the date
`
`of termination she worked Monday through Friday.
`
`21.
`
`Ledesma was scheduled to work from 7:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. Nevertheless, Jerez was
`
`frequently required to stay working past her shift to attend to customers.
`
`22.
`
`Throughout her employment with Defendants, Jerez was being compensated at a
`
`rate of Seventeen Dollars ($17) per hour. In 2021, they raised her hourly wage to twenty-one
`
`($21) per hour. She was paid in cash.
`
`23.
`
`In 2020, she worked 1 or 2 hours of overtime a week. From April 2021 until
`
`January 2022, she worked more hours, sometimes working on Sunday and leaving her post at 5
`
`or 6 P.M.
`
`24.
`
`Defendant repeatedly suffered or permitted Jerez to work over fifty-four (54)
`
`hours per week, which is in excess of the standard forty (40) hours per week, as a farmworker
`
`without paying her the appropriate premium overtime pay of one- and one-half times the
`
`statutory minimum.
`
`25.
`
`Jerez was not provided with a notice containing the rate and basis of her pay; the
`
`designated pay date; and the employer's name, address and telephone number at the time of
`
`hiring or at any point thereafter.
`
`26.
`
`Jerez was never provided with wage statements detailing dates worked, money
`
`received and the employer's details at any point during the time of her employment with
`
`4
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 7:22-cv-03394-PMH Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 5 of 11
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`27.
`
`Upon information and belief, while Defendants employed Jerez, they failed to
`
`post notices explaining the minimum wage rights of employees under the FLSA and NYLL and
`
`failed to inform Jerez of such rights.
`
`28.
`
`Throughout the duration of her employment, Jerez did not have any supervisory
`
`authority nor did she exercise discretion or independent judgment with respect to matters of
`
`significance.
`
`29.
`
`Jerez consents to be a party to the FLSA claims in this action, pursuant to 29
`
`U.S.C. §216(b).
`
`DEMARIA’S HEMLOCK HILL FARM, LLC
`
`(Corporate Defendant)
`
`30.
`
`DEMARIA’S HEMLOCK HILL FARM, LLC (“Hemlock Hill Farm”) is a
`
`corporation doing business in New York as “Hemlock Hill Farm”.
`
`31.
`
`DEMARIA’S HEMLOCK HILL FARM, LLC owns and operates Hemlock Hill
`
`Farm, a farm, located at 500 Croton Avenue Cortlandt, NY 10567.
`
`32.
`
`At all relevant times, Hemlock Hill Farm was a covered employer and "an
`
`enterprise engaged in commerce" within the meaning of the FLSA and the NYLL.
`
`33.
`
`At all relevant times, Hemlock Hill Farm maintained control, oversight, and
`
`direction over the Plaintiff, including timekeeping, payroll and other employment practices that
`
`applied to them.
`
`34.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, DEMARIA'S HEMLOCK
`
`HILL FARM, LLC 's annual gross volume of sales made, or business done, was not less than
`
`$500.000, exclusive of separate retail excise taxes, within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C.
`
`5
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 7:22-cv-03394-PMH Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 6 of 11
`
`
`
`§ 203(s)(1)(a)(ii).
`
`JOHN N. DEMARIA
`
`(Individual Defendants)
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, JOHN N. DEMARIA,
`
`(“DEMARIA”) was, at the time of Plaintiffs' employment, owner, member, and authorized
`
`operator, manager, and agent of Corporate Defendants.
`
`36.
`
`At all relevant times throughout the Plaintiffs’ employment, DEMARIA had the
`
`discretionary power to create and enforce personnel decisions on behalf of the Corporate
`
`Defendants, including but not limited to: hiring and terminating employees; setting and
`
`authorizing issuance of wages; maintaining employee records; setting Plaintiff' schedules; and
`
`otherwise controlling the terms and conditions of the working conditions for the Plaintiff while
`
`she was employed by Defendants.
`
`37.
`
`At all relevant times throughout Plaintiff’ employment, DEMARIA was actively
`
`involved in the day-to-day operations of the Corporate Defendants.
`
`38.
`
`At all relevant times throughout Plaintiff’ employment, DEMARIA was a
`
`"covered employer" within the meaning of the FLSA and the NYLL, and employed or jointly
`
`employed Plaintiff, and is personally liable for the unpaid wages sought herein, pursuant to 29
`
`U.S.C. § 203(d).
`
`LAURA DEMARIA
`
`39.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, LAURA DEMARIA,
`
`(“DEMARIA”) was, at the time of Plaintiffs' employment, owner, member, and authorized
`
`operator, manager, and agent of Corporate Defendants.
`
`40.
`
`At all relevant times throughout the Plaintiffs’ employment, DEMARIA had the
`
`6
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 7:22-cv-03394-PMH Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 7 of 11
`
`
`
`discretionary power to create and enforce personnel decisions on behalf of the Corporate
`
`Defendants, including but not limited to: hiring and terminating employees; setting and
`
`authorizing the issuance of wages; maintaining employee records; setting Plaintiff' schedules;
`
`and otherwise controlling the terms and conditions of the working conditions for the Plaintiff
`
`while she was employed by Defendants.
`
`41.
`
`At all relevant times throughout Plaintiff’ employment, DEMARIA was actively
`
`involved in the day-to-day operations of the Corporate Defendants.
`
`42.
`
`At all relevant times throughout Plaintiff’ employment, DEMARIA was a
`
`"covered employer" within the meaning of the FLSA and the NYLL, and employed or jointly
`
`employed Plaintiff, and is personally liable for the unpaid wages sought herein, pursuant to 29
`
`U.S.C. § 203(d).
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Fair Labor Standards Act – Unpaid Overtime Wages
`
`Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference the allegations made in all
`
`43.
`
`preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`44.
`
`The overtime wage provisions set forth in the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1) and
`
`the supporting federal regulations, apply to Defendants and protect Plaintiff.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff overtime wages at a rate of one and one-
`
`half times the regular rate at which she was employed for but under no instance less than one and
`
`one-half times the statutory minimum wage for all of the hours that she worked in excess of forty
`
`(48) hours per workweek.
`
`46.
`
`As a result of Defendants' violations of the FLSA, Plaintiff has been deprived of
`
`overtime compensation and other wages in amounts to be determined at trial, and are entitled to
`
`7
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 7:22-cv-03394-PMH Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 8 of 11
`
`
`
`recovery of such amounts, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and other compensation
`
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b).
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`New York Labor Law – Unpaid Overtime wages
`
`Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding
`
`47.
`
`paragraphs.
`
`48.
`
`The overtime wage provisions as set forth in NYLL §§ 190 et seq. and the
`
`supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations apply to Defendants and protect
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`49.
`
`Defendants have failed to pay Plaintiff proper overtime to which she was entitled
`
`to at a wage rate of one and one-half times the employee's regular rate but under no instance less
`
`than one and one-half times the statutory minimum wage as defined by the New York State
`
`Department of Labor regulations, including but not limited to 12 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 146-1.4.
`
`50.
`
`Through their knowing or intentional failure to pay Plaintiff proper overtime
`
`wages for hours worked in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, Defendants have willfully
`
`violated the NYLL §§ 190 et seq., and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
`
`Regulations.
`
`51.
`
`Due to Defendants' violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from
`
`Defendants her unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages as provided for by the NYLL,
`
`reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of the action, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
`
`
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`New York Labor Law– Failure to Provide Notice at the Time of Hiring
`
`
`8
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 7:22-cv-03394-PMH Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 9 of 11
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding
`
`paragraphs.
`
`53.
`
`Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff, at the time of hiring, a notice
`
`containing the rate of pay and basis thereof, whether paid by the hour, shift, day, week, salary,
`
`piece, commission, or other; the regular pay day designated by the employer; the physical address
`
`of the employer's main office or principal place of business; the telephone number of the
`
`employer, and anything otherwise required by law, in violation of NYLL § 195(1).
`
`54.
`
`Due to Defendants' violations of the NYLL § 195(1), Plaintiff are entitled to
`
`recover from Defendants statutory damages of fifty dollars ($50) per workweek that the violation
`
`occurred, up to a maximum of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500), until February 26,
`
`2015, and statutory damages of Fifty dollars ($50) per workday that the violation occurred, up to
`
`a maximum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), thereafter, pursuant to NYLL § 198 (1-b).
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`New York Labor Law– Failure to Provide Wage Statements
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference all allegations in all preceding
`
`55.
`
`paragraphs.
`
`56.
`
`Defendants have failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage statements listing
`
`their rate of pay; the period covered; and overtime pay, in violation of NYLL § 195(3).
`
`57.
`
`Due to Defendants’ violations of the NYLL, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from
`
`Defendants One Hundred Dollars ($100) for each workweek that the violations occurred, up to a
`
`maximum of Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500), until February 26, 2015, and
`
`statutory damages of Two Hundred and Fifty dollars ($250) per workday that the violation
`
`9
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 7:22-cv-03394-PMH Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 10 of 11
`
`
`
`occurred, up to a maximum of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000), thereafter, pursuant to NYLL §
`
`198 (1-d).
`
`DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`
`58.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demand
`
`a trial by jury of all issues so triable in this action.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seek the following relief:
`
`A.
`
`Issuance of a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of in this
`
`complaint are unlawful under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seq., New York
`
`Labor Law, Article 6, §§ 190 et seq., and Article 19, §§ 650 et seq., and the supporting New
`
`York State Department of Labor Regulations;
`
`B.
`
`Unpaid minimum wages, tips, and overtime pay under the FLSA and an
`
`additional and equal amount as liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) and the
`
`supporting United States Department of Labor regulations;
`
`C.
`
`Liquidated damages equal to the amount of all late payments received by
`
`Plaintiff, pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b) and 29 C.F.R. § 790.21;
`
`D.
`
`Unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages under NYLL an additional and
`
`equal amount as liquidated damages pursuant to NYLL §198(1-a) and §663(1);
`
`E.
`
`Liquidated damages equal to the amount of all late payments received by
`
`Plaintiff, pursuant to NYLL § 198 (1-a);
`
`F.
`
`An award of statutory damages for Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff with a
`
`wage notice at the time of hiring pursuant to NYLL § 198 (1-b);
`
`10
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`Case 7:22-cv-03394-PMH Document 1 Filed 04/26/22 Page 11 of 11
`
`
`
`G.
`
`An award of statutory damages for Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff with
`
`accurate wage statements pursuant to NYLL § 198 (1-d);
`
`H.
`
`An award of front pay, lost compensation, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees,
`
`and liquidated damages pursuant to NYLL § 215(2)(a);
`
`I.
`
`A permanent injunction requiring Defendants to pay all statutorily required wages
`
`pursuant to the FLSA and NYLL;
`
`J.
`
`If liquidated damages pursuant to FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), are not awarded, an
`
`award of prejudgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961;
`
`K.
`
`An award of pre-judgment interest of nine per centum per annum (9%) pursuant
`
`to the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules §§ 5001-5004;
`
`L.
`
`An award of post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 and/or the New
`
`York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 5003;
`
`M.
`
`An award of attorney's fees, costs, and further expenses up to fifty dollars,
`
`pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and NYLL §§ 198 and 663(1);
`
`N.
`
`Such other relief as this Court shall deem just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: New York, New York
`
`April 26, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STILLMAN LEGAL PC
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`/s/Lina Stillman
`Stillman Legal, PC
`42 Broadway, 12th Floor
`New York, New York 10004
`Telephone: 1800-933-5620
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`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
`
`
`
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
