Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`FALL LINE PATENTS, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET,
`INC. and SFM, LLC D/B/A SF
`MARKETS, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-182
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT FOR PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Fall Line Patents, LLC (“Fall Line” or “Plaintiff”) files this original
`
`complaint against Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. and SFM, LLC d/b/a SF Markets,
`
`LLC (collectively, “Sprouts” or “Defendant”), alleging, based on its own
`
`knowledge as to itself and its own actions and based on information and belief as to
`
`all other matters, as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Fall Line is a limited liability company formed under the laws of the
`
`State of Oklahoma, with its principal place of business at 2121 South Yorktown,
`
`#1103, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74114.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. is a corporation organized
`
`1
`
`Instacart, Ex. 1015
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2
`
`
`under the laws of the State of Delaware. It can be served with process by serving its
`
`registered agent: Corporation Service Company; 251 Little Falls Drive;
`
`Wilmington, DE 19808.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant SFM, LLC d/b/a SF Markets, LLC is a limited liability
`
`company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. It can be served with
`
`process by serving its registered agent: Corporation Service Company DBA CSC -
`
`Lawyers Incorporating Service Company; 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620; Austin, TX
`
`78701.
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`This is an action for infringement of a United States patent arising
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, and 284–85, among others. This Court has subject
`
`matter jurisdiction of the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1338(a).
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 and
`
`1400(b). Upon information and belief, Defendant has transacted business in this
`
`district and has committed, by itself or in concert with others, acts of patent
`
`infringement in this district. For example, Sprouts makes, has made, uses, imports,
`
`provides, supplies, distributes, sells, or offers to sell the Sprouts Mobile App, as set
`
`forth below.
`
`6.
`
`In addition, Sprouts maintains a regular and established place of
`
`business in this district through numerous stores, including, for example, at 9241
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3
`
`
`Virginia Pkwy, McKinney, Texas, 75071 and 4100 Legacy Dr. # 401, Plano,
`
`Texas, 75024. Sprouts uses the Sprouts Mobile App to direct customers to, and
`
`receive orders from customers for, one or more Sprouts stores located in this
`
`district.
`
`7.
`
`Sprouts is subject to this Court’s specific and general personal
`
`jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at
`
`least to its substantial business in this forum, including: (i) at least a portion of the
`
`infringements alleged herein; and/or (ii) regularly doing or soliciting business,
`
`engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue
`
`from goods and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this district.
`
`
`
`THE TECHNOLOGY
`
`8.
`
`The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 (“the ‘748 Patent”),
`
`titled “System and Method for Data Management,” teaches methods for managing
`
`and collecting data from a remote computing device. Specifically, the invention
`
`addresses the need to collect location-specific information on a variety of hardware
`
`and software platforms without the need to create separate and individualized
`
`software for each of the numerous manufacturers of remote computing devices.
`
`The inventor of the ‘748 Patent, as well as its parent applications and patents,
`
`developed systems and methods to enable developers to create a single application
`
`that could function on numerous models of remote computing devices, without the
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4
`
`
`need to create separate software for each model, as was often required in the prior
`
`art.
`
`
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`
`DIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO.
`9,454,748
`
`9.
`
`On September 27, 2016, the ‘748 Patent was duly and legally issued
`
`by the United States Patent and Trademark Office for an invention entitled
`
`“System and Method for Data Management.”
`
`10. Fall Line is the owner of the ‘748 Patent, with all substantive rights in
`
`and to that patent, including the sole and exclusive right to prosecute this action
`
`and enforce the ‘748 Patent against infringers, and to collect damages for all
`
`relevant times.
`
`11. Sprouts made, had made, used, imported, provided, supplied,
`
`distributed, sold, and/or offered the Sprouts mobile app that, in conjunction with
`
`Sprouts servers, create and execute a location-specific questionnaire to collect
`
`responses from users.
`
`12. By doing so, Sprouts has directly infringed (literally and/or under the
`
`doctrine of equivalents) Claim 7 of the ‘748 Patent. The infringement in this regard
`
`is ongoing.
`
`13. Fall Line has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5
`
`
`Sprouts. Thus, Sprouts is liable to Fall Line in an amount that adequately
`
`compensates it for such infringements, which, by law, cannot be less than a
`
`reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 284.
`
`14. Fall Line and/or its predecessors-in-interest have satisfied all statutory
`
`obligations required to collect pre-filing damages for the full period allowed by
`
`law for infringement of the ‘748 Patent.
`
`
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DIRECT INFRINGEMENT
`
`15. Defendant has also directly infringed the ‘748 Patent by exercising
`
`direction or control over the use of the accused products by its customers. When
`
`Defendant’s customers download and use the accused products, Defendant is
`
`putting the accused products into service and conditions the benefit received by
`
`each customer from using the accused products (which utilize the methods taught
`
`by the ‘748 Patent). Use of the accused products in such manner infringes the ‘748
`
`Patent.
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING INDIRECT
`INFRINGEMENT
`
`16. Defendant has also indirectly infringed the ‘748 Patent by inducing
`
`
`
`others to directly infringe the ‘748 Patent. Defendant has induced the end-users,
`
`Defendant’s customers, to directly infringe (literally and/or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents) the ‘748 Patent by using the accused products. Defendant took active
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6
`
`
`steps, directly and/or through contractual relationships with others, with the
`
`specific intent to cause them to use the accused products in a manner that infringes
`
`Claim 7 of the ‘748 Patent. Such steps by Defendant included, among other things,
`
`advising or directing customers and end-users to use the accused products in an
`
`infringing manner; advertising and promoting the use of the accused products in an
`
`infringing manner; and/or distributing instructions that guide users to use the
`
`accused products in an infringing manner. Defendant is performing these steps,
`
`which constitute induced infringement with the knowledge of the ‘748 Patent and
`
`with the knowledge that the induced acts constitute infringement. Defendant is
`
`aware that the normal and customary use of the accused products by Defendant’s
`
`customers would infringe the ‘748 Patent. Defendant’s inducement is ongoing.
`
`17. Defendant has also indirectly infringed by contributing to the
`
`infringement of the ‘748 Patent. Defendant has contributed to the direct
`
`infringement of the ‘748 Patent by the end-user of the accused products. The
`
`accused products have special features that are specially designed to be used in an
`
`infringing way and that have no substantial uses other than ones that infringe
`
`Claim 7 of the ‘748 Patent. The special features constitute a material part of the
`
`invention of one or more of the claims of the ‘748 Patent and are not staple articles
`
`of commerce suitable for substantial non- infringing use. Defendant’s contributory
`
`infringement is ongoing.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7
`
`
`18. Defendant has knowledge of the ‘748 Patent at least as of the date
`
`when it was notified of the filing of this action.
`
`19. Furthermore, on information and belief, Defendant has a policy or
`
`practice of not reviewing the patents of others (including instructing its employees
`
`to not review the patents of others), and thus has been willfully blind of Fall Line’s
`
`patent rights.
`
`20. Defendant’s actions are at least objectively reckless as to the risk of
`
`infringing a valid patent and this objective risk was either known or should have
`
`been known by Defendant. Defendant’s direct and indirect infringement of the
`
`‘748 Patent is, has been, and continues to be willful, intentional, deliberate, and/or
`
`in conscious disregard of Fall Line’s rights under the patent.
`
`21. Fall Line has been damaged as a result of the infringing conduct by
`
`defendant alleged above. Thus, Defendant is liable to Fall Line in an amount that
`
`adequately compensates it for such infringements, which, by law, cannot be less
`
`than a reasonable royalty, together with interest and costs as fixed by this Court
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 284.
`
`ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING
`PATENTABILITY
`
`22. The ‘748 Patent is directed to improving data management on remote
`
`
`
`handheld computers that are “loosely networked” to servers for the purpose of
`
`collecting information in the field. ‘748 Patent at 1:19-24; 1:33-40.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8
`
`
`23.
`
`In 2002, when the parent provisional application for the ‘748 Patent
`
`was filed, the then-existing remote handheld computers suffered from many
`
`technical problems. These included:
`
`• operating systems for the remote handheld computers “mimic[ed] those
`of desktop and laptop systems, despite the fact that handheld devices are
`typically used in a different manner and have radically different
`resources,” see, e.g., ‘748 Patent at 1:45-48;
`
`• compatibility issues prevented applications developed for one remote
`computing device from being used on a different remote computing
`device, id. at 1:49-2:2;
`
`• compatibility issues prevented data from being shared across different
`devices, id. at 2:3- 12;
`
`• prior-art approaches to overcoming compatibility issues, including
`using i-code and tokens and layer to execute them, lacked
`optimization, and required a high level of programming skill to
`create, id. at 2:13-31;
`
`• prior-art systems typically required “custom” programs “tailored for a
`specific customer” at high cost, id. at 2:41-64;
`
`• prior-art systems required custom development and compilation for each
`separate type of device, id. at 3:1-7;
`
`• prior-art systems required an entire program to be recompiled and
`reinstalled to implement a single change in the program, id. at
`3:7-10;
`
`• networks available to devices in the field were not always available, id. at
`3:64-67;
`
`• networks available to devices in the field have limited bandwidth, id. at
`3:67-4:1; and
`
`• prior-art approaches to dealing with intermittent networks,
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9
`
`
`including store-and- forward and real-time transmission, were not
`satisfactory, id. at 4:3-17.
`
`24.
`
`It is these technical problems with the prior-art remote handheld
`
`
`
`computers that the inventor of the ‘748 Patent sought to address.
`
`25. Regarding the compatibility issues, the then-existing practice was “for
`
`a business to commission the authoring of a custom program aimed at a particular
`
`need.” Id. at 2:57-59. What that means is that, prior to the inventions disclosed in
`
`the ‘748 Patent, when the program running on the remote handheld computer
`
`needed changing, developers must first make the change on a development system
`
`and then re-transfer the entire program to each target device. Id. at 3:7-10. If more
`
`than one type of device is used, that process must be completed for each type of
`
`device. Id.
`
`26. To address this problem, the inventor of the ‘748 Patent used device-
`
`independent (or device-indifferent) tokens and the creation of tokenized
`
`questionnaires. By tokenizing a questionnaire, it can be executed on a remote
`
`handheld computer without the need to recompile and reload a software package
`
`onto the handheld computer. Id. at 5:21-32. This means that changes, including
`
`incremental changes, can be made automatically and without the need to reload the
`
`entire program. Id. at 5:26-32. The use of device-independent tokens also allows
`
`the questionnaire to be used on different types of devices without the need to create
`
`a custom program for each device type. Id. at 4:66-5:2. The application of
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10
`
`
`tokenizing in the context of the methods claimed by the ‘748 Patent is an advance
`
`over the prior art, and was not well- understood, routine, and conventional. This
`
`advance is reflected in the claims of the patents-in-suit.
`
`27. Additionally, to handle the loose nature of networks that are available
`
`to handheld devices, the ‘748 Patent explains that “if any communication
`
`connection is available between devices wishing to communicate, network
`
`transmissions occur normally, in real time.” Id. at 5:7-10. On the other hand, “[i]f a
`
`network connection is unavailable at that moment, the information is temporarily
`
`stored in the device and later transmitted when the connection is restored.” Id. at
`
`5:10-12. This approach, along with the use of device-independent tokens, enables a
`
`reduction to the “load on a communication channel of finite bandwidth.” Id. at
`
`4:36-39. This connection scheme represented an advance over the prior art and was
`
`not well-understood, routine, and conventional. It is reflected in the claims of the
`
`patents-in-suit.
`
`28.
`
`In addition, the ‘748 Patent teaches using an integral GPS device for
`
`multiple purposes, including causing location information to be automatically
`
`collected by the executing questionnaire, creating questionnaires that are
`
`customized for particular locations, and executing questionnaires when the remote
`
`computing devices is at certain locations. Id. at 5:33-48; 8:56- 61; 10:55-65. This
`
`use of an integral GPS device represented an advance over the prior art and was
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11
`
`
`not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Specifically, it was unconventional
`
`to use an integrated GPS unit to automate the collection and use of location
`
`identifying information for purposes of customizing a questionnaire. It was also
`
`unconventional to automatically collect location identifying information for
`
`transmission to a server so that questions customized for that location could be
`
`generated and sent back to the handheld device. This unconventional technology is
`
`reflected in the claims of the patent-in-suit, including Claim 7. See, e.g., Fall Line
`
`Patents, LLC v. Zoe’s Kitchen, Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-00407-RWS, Dkt. No. 151
`
`[5/25/21 Order] (denying motion to dismiss because Fall Line had plausibly
`
`alleged inventive concepts); Dkt. No. 348 [7/11/23 Public Version of 6/29/23
`
`Order] (granting Fall Line’s motion for summary judgment of validity under
`
`section 101).
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Fall Line hereby requests a trial by jury on all issues so triable by right.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Fall Line requests that the Court find in its favor and against Defendant, and
`
`that the Court grant Fall Line the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`Judgment that one or more claims of the ‘748 Patent have been
`
`infringed, either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by Defendant
`
`and/or all others acting in concert therewith;
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12
`
`
`b.
`
`Judgment that Defendant accounts for and pays to Fall Line all
`
`damages to and costs incurred by Fall Line because of Defendant’s infringing
`
`activities and other conduct complained of herein, including an award of all
`
`increased damages to which Fall Line is entitled under 35 U.S.C. § 284;
`
`c.
`
`That Fall Line be granted pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on
`
`the damages caused by Defendant’s infringing activities and other conduct
`
`complained of herein;
`
`d.
`
`That this Court declare this an exceptional case and award Fall Line its
`
`reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
`
`e.
`
`That Fall Line be granted such other and further relief as the Court
`
`may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
`
`
`Dated: November 25, 2024
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Matthew J. Antonelli
`Matthew J. Antonelli
`Texas Bar No. 24068432
`matt@ahtlawfirm.com
`Zachariah S. Harrington
`Texas Bar No. 24057886
`zac@ahtlawfirm.com
`Larry D. Thompson, Jr.
`Texas Bar No. 24051428
`larry@ahtlawfirm.com
`Rehan M. Safiullah
`Texas Bar No. 24066017
`rehan@ahtlawfirm.com
`ANTONELLI, HARRINGTON &
`THOMPSON LLP
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13
`
`
`4306 Yoakum Blvd., Ste. 450
`Houston, TX 77006
`(713) 581-3000
`
`Attorneys for Fall Line Patents, LLC
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 14
`CIVIL COVER SHEET
`JS 44 (Rev. 03/24)
`The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
`provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
`purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
`I. (a) PLAINTIFFS
`DEFENDANTS
`Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. and SFM, LLC d/b/a SF
`Fall Line Patents, LLC
`Markets, LLC
`(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
`County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
`(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
`(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
`IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
`THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
`Attorneys (If Known)
`
`NOTE:
`
`(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
`Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP, 4306 Yoakum
`Blvd, Suite 450, Houston, TX 77006, (713) 581-3000
`II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`1 U.S. Government
`3 Federal Question
`Plaintiff
`(U.S. Government Not a Party)
`
`✖
`
`III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
`and One Box for Defendant)
`(For Diversity Cases Only)
`PTF
`DEF
`PTF
`DEF
`1
`1
`4
`
`Citizen of This State
`
`Incorporated or Principal Place
`of Business In This State
`
`4
`
`2 U.S. Government
`Defendant
`
`4 Diversity
`(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
`
`Citizen of Another State
`
`2
`
`3
`
`2
`
`3
`
`Incorporated and Principal Place
`of Business In Another State
`
`Foreign Nation
`
`5
`
`6
`
`5
`
`6
`
`Citizen or Subject of a
`Foreign Country
`
`FORFEITURE/PENALTY
`625 Drug Related Seizure
`of Property 21 USC 881
`690 Other
`
`LABOR
`710 Fair Labor Standards
`Act
`720 Labor/Management
`Relations
`740 Railway Labor Act
`751 Family and Medical
`Leave Act
`790 Other Labor Litigation
`791 Employee Retirement
`Income Security Act
`
`IMMIGRATION
`462 Naturalization Application
`465 Other Immigration
`Actions
`
`Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
`BANKRUPTCY
`OTHER STATUTES
`422 Appeal 28 USC 158
`375 False Claims Act
`423 Withdrawal
`376 Qui Tam (31 USC
`28 USC 157
`3729(a))
`400 State Reapportionment
`INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY RIGHTS
`410 Antitrust
`430 Banks and Banking
`820 Copyrights
`450 Commerce
`830 Patent
`460 Deportation
`835 Patent - Abbreviated
`470 Racketeer Influenced and
`New Drug Application
`Corrupt Organizations
`840 Trademark
`480 Consumer Credit
`880 Defend Trade Secrets
`(15 USC 1681 or 1692)
`Act of 2016
`485 Telephone Consumer
`Protection Act
`490 Cable/Sat TV
`850 Securities/Commodities/
`Exchange
`890 Other Statutory Actions
`891 Agricultural Acts
`893 Environmental Matters
`895 Freedom of Information
`Act
`896 Arbitration
`899 Administrative Procedure
`Act/Review or Appeal of
`Agency Decision
`950 Constitutionality of
`State Statutes
`
`✖
`
`SOCIAL SECURITY
`861 HIA (1395ff)
`862 Black Lung (923)
`863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
`864 SSID Title XVI
`865 RSI (405(g))
`
`FEDERAL TAX SUITS
`870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
`or Defendant)
`871 IRS—Third Party
`26 USC 7609
`
`IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`CONTRACT
`TORTS
`PERSONAL INJURY
`PERSONAL INJURY
`110 Insurance
`120 Marine
`310 Airplane
`365 Personal Injury -
`130 Miller Act
`315 Airplane Product
`Product Liability
`140 Negotiable Instrument
`Liability
`367 Health Care/
`150 Recovery of Overpayment
`320 Assault, Libel &
`Pharmaceutical
`& Enforcement of Judgment
`Slander
`Personal Injury
`151 Medicare Act
`330 Federal Employers’
`Product Liability
`152 Recovery of Defaulted
`Liability
`368 Asbestos Personal
`Student Loans
`340 Marine
`Injury Product
`(Excludes Veterans)
`345 Marine Product
`Liability
`PERSONAL PROPERTY
`153 Recovery of Overpayment
`Liability
`of Veteran’s Benefits
`350 Motor Vehicle
`370 Other Fraud
`160 Stockholders’ Suits
`355 Motor Vehicle
`371 Truth in Lending
`190 Other Contract
`Product Liability
`380 Other Personal
`195 Contract Product Liability
`360 Other Personal
`Property Damage
`196 Franchise
`Injury
`385 Property Damage
`362 Personal Injury -
`Product Liability
`Medical Malpractice
`CIVIL RIGHTS
`440 Other Civil Rights
`441 Voting
`442 Employment
`443 Housing/
`Accommodations
`445 Amer. w/Disabilities -
`Employment
`446 Amer. w/Disabilities -
`Other
`448 Education
`
`REAL PROPERTY
`210 Land Condemnation
`220 Foreclosure
`230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
`240 Torts to Land
`245 Tort Product Liability
`290 All Other Real Property
`
`PRISONER PETITIONS
`Habeas Corpus:
`463 Alien Detainee
`510 Motions to Vacate
`Sentence
`530 General
`535 Death Penalty
`Other:
`540 Mandamus & Other
`550 Civil Rights
`555 Prison Condition
`560 Civil Detainee -
`Conditions of
`Confinement
`
`5 Transferred from
`Another District
`(specify)
`Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
`35 U.S.C. §§ 271
`Brief description of cause:
`Patent Infringement
`CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
`UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
`
`VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`VII. REQUESTED IN
`COMPLAINT:
`VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
` IF ANY
`DATE
`Nov 25, 2024
`FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
`
`DEMAND $
`
`CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
`JURY DEMAND:
`Yes
`No
`
`✖
`
`(See instructions):
`
`JUDGE
`Robert W. Schroeder, III
`SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
`/s/ Matthew J. Antonelli
`
`DOCKET NUMBER
`
`5:24-cv-89 through -97
`
`RECEIPT #
`
`AMOUNT
`
`APPLYING IFP
`
`JUDGE
`
`MAG. JUDGE
`
`V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
`1 Original
`2 Removed from
`Proceeding
`State Court
`
`✖
`
`3 Remanded from
`Appellate Court
`
`4 Reinstated or
`Reopened
`
`6 Multidistrict
`Litigation -
`Transfer
`
`8 Multidistrict
`Litigation -
`Direct File
`
`

`

`Case 5:24-cv-00182-RWS Document 1-1 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 15
`JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 03/24)
`INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
`Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
`
`The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
`required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
`required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
`Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
`
`I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
`only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then
`the official, giving both name and title.
` (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
`time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
`condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
` (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
`in this section "(see attachment)".
`
`II.
`
`Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
`in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
`United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
`United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
`Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
`to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
`precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
`Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
`citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
`cases.)
`
`III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
`section for each principal party.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
`that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
`
`Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.
`Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
`Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
`Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
`date.
`Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
`Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
`multidistrict litigation transfers.
`Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
`Section 1407.
`Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
`PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
`changes in statute.
`
`VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
`statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service.
`
`VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
`Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
`Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
`
`VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related cases, if any. If there are related cases, insert the docket
`numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
`
`Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
`
`