throbber
Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39184 Filed 05/07/21 Page 1 of 19
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`Hon. Sean F. Cox
`
`Mag. Judge R. Steven Whalen
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`ALL END PAYOR ACTIONS
`
`
`
`
`
`FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC’S
`MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
`THE COURT’S APRIL 28 OPINION AND ORDER
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying memorandum,
`
`Financial Recovery Services, LLC d/b/a Financial Recovery Strategies (“FRS”), by
`
`its undersigned attorneys, will move this Court, before the Honorable Sean F. Cox,
`
`at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, at a time
`
`and place set by the Court, for an Order reconsidering the Court’s April 28, 2021
`
`Opinion and Order denying FRS’s Emergency Motion To Compel Acceptance and
`
`Processing of Vehicle Data (ECF No. 2134) and for such other and further relief as
`
`the Court deems just and proper. Counsel for FRS sought concurrence in this
`
`motion from the parties to the End Payor Actions. Counsel for End Payor
`
`Plaintiffs stated that they oppose the motion, and counsel for End Payor
`
`Defendants stated that they take no position on the motion.
`
`WHEREFORE, FRS requests that the Court grant the following relief:
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39185 Filed 05/07/21 Page 2 of 19
`
`A. Reconsider the Court’s April 28, 2021 Opinion and Order denying
`
`FRS’s Emergency Motion To Compel Acceptance and Processing of Vehicle Data;
`
`B. Upon reconsideration, enter an order compelling Class Counsel and
`
`the Claims Administrator to (1) permit FRS and the Insurers a reasonable
`
`opportunity to submit vehicle data in support of their timely filed claim forms, and
`
`(2) deem that data timely for the purpose of evaluating FRS and Insurers’
`
`eligibility to recover under the End Payor Settlements; and
`
`C. Grant such further relief as the Court determines to be appropriate.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39186 Filed 05/07/21 Page 3 of 19
`
`Dated: May 7, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Laura S. Faussié
`Jonathan T. Walton, Jr. (P32969)
`Laura S. Faussié (P48933)
`FRASER TREBILCOCK
` DAVIS & DUNLAP, P.C.
`One Woodward Avenue, Suite 1550
`Detroit, MI 48226
`(313) 237-7300
`jwalton@fraserlawfirm.com
`lfaussie@fraserlawfirm.com
`
`Aaron M. Panner
`Matthew R. Huppert
`Daniel S. Severson
`KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD,
` FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
`1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 326-7900
`apanner@kellogghansen.com
`mhuppert@kellogghansen.com
`dseverson@kellogghansen.com
`
`Counsel for Financial Recovery
`Services, LLC
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39187 Filed 05/07/21 Page 4 of 19
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`Master File No. 12-md-02311
`IN RE: AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
`
`ANTITRUST LITIGATION
`
`
`Hon. Sean F. Cox
`
`Mag. Judge R. Steven Whalen
`
`
`THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
`
`
`ALL END PAYOR ACTIONS
`
`BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES, LLC’S
`MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
`THE COURT’S APRIL 28 OPINION AND ORDER
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39188 Filed 05/07/21 Page 5 of 19
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... vi
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................................ vii
`
`CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES ......................... viii
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................ 2
`
`ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Under Rule 23, Non-Parties with Class-Member Interests May,
`Without Intervening, Seek Appropriate Relief in a Class
`Proceeding ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`FRS’s Motion To Compel Is Independent from FRS’s Prior
`Motion To Intervene and from FRS’s Pending Appeal .................................. 6
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39189 Filed 05/07/21 Page 6 of 19
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`CASES
`
`Faber v. Ciox Health, LLC, 944 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2019) ........................................ 5
`
`Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., In re, 695 F.2d 494 (3d Cir. 1982) ................................ 5
`
`Knowles v. Butz, 358 F. Supp. 228 (N.D. Cal. 1973) ................................................ 4
`
`Mich. Dep’t of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731
`(E.D. Mich. 2002) ........................................................................................ 2, 3
`
`Moulton v. U.S. Steel Corp., 581 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2009) ....................................... 5
`
`Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985) ............................................. 4
`
`
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.:
`
`Rule 23 ................................................................................................. 1, 3, 5, 6
`
`Rule 23(c) ........................................................................................................ 4
`
`Rule 23(c)(2)(B)(iv) ..................................................................................... 3, 5
`
`Rule 23(d)(1) ................................................................................................... 3
`
`Rule 24 ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3) .......................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`OTHER MATERIALS
`
`Newberg on Class Actions (5th ed.) ....................................................................... 4, 6
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39190 Filed 05/07/21 Page 7 of 19
`
`ISSUE PRESENTED
`
`Should the Court reconsider its April 28, 2021 Opinion and Order and require
`Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator to accept and process as timely
`vehicle data that a class member submits in support of timely filed claim forms?
`
`FRS says “Yes.”
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39191 Filed 05/07/21 Page 8 of 19
`
`CONTROLLING OR MOST APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
`
`Moulton v. U.S. Steel Corp., 581 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 2009)
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39192 Filed 05/07/21 Page 9 of 19
`
`Financial Recovery Services, LLC d/b/a Financial Recovery Strategies
`
`(“FRS”) moves for reconsideration of the Court’s April 28, 2021 Opinion and
`
`Order denying FRS’s motion to compel processing of vehicle data, ECF No. 2134
`
`(the “April 28 Order”). The April 28 Order is based on the incorrect premise that
`
`the Court lacks authority to decide the merits of FRS’s motion because (1) FRS is a
`
`non-party and/or (2) FRS’s motion to compel is related to or seeks reconsideration
`
`of FRS’s prior motion to intervene. Id. at 1-2, PageID.39177-39178. Because
`
`those apparent bases for the Court’s decision are incorrect and outcome-
`
`determinative, the Court should reconsider its decision. FRS also requests oral
`
`argument, which FRS respectfully submits would assist the Court in clarifying
`
`these issues.
`
`First, FRS’s status as a non-party does not affect its right to seek the relief
`
`requested in its motion to compel, and, therefore, this Court erred in citing FRS’s
`
`status as a “non-party” as a basis to deny FRS relief. FRS is an assignee and
`
`representative of absent class members’ interests in this proceeding; the Claims
`
`Administrator’s refusal to process vehicle data is prejudicing those interests.
`
`Accordingly, FRS is entitled under Rule 23, without intervening under Rule 24, to
`
`appear in this proceeding to seek protection of its and its clients’ class-member
`
`interests; FRS’s status as a “non-party” is not a proper basis for denying FRS’s
`
`motion or declining to consider its merits. More broadly, the Court cannot and
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39193 Filed 05/07/21 Page 10 of 19
`
`should not bar the courthouse doors to absent class members in this proceeding
`
`merely because they are “non-parties.”
`
`Second, this Court has authority to decide FRS’s motion to compel because
`
`that motion does not relate to or depend upon FRS’s prior motion to intervene
`
`(ECF No. 2060) or upon FRS’s pending appeal of the Court’s denial of
`
`intervention (ECF No. 2101). The motion to compel deals with the procedural
`
`rights of claimants to have their vehicle data processed; that issue is independent
`
`of, and broader than, the topic of FRS’s motion to intervene—namely, the legal
`
`rights of subrogated auto insurers. The Claims Administrator’s unauthorized
`
`refusal to process vehicle data harms the rights of non-party claimants that, in
`
`support of timely filed claims, have submitted or will submit vehicle data after the
`
`claim-filing deadline; this includes claimants that are not insurers, do not seek
`
`recovery as subrogees, and have not sought intervention. The prejudice caused by
`
`not processing this vehicle data will remain regardless of whether FRS may
`
`intervene. Accordingly, FRS’s motion to compel requires independent
`
`consideration, and FRS’s pending appeal does not deprive this Court of authority
`
`to rule on that motion.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`The Court will grant a motion for reconsideration if the moving party shows
`
`“a palpable defect which results in a different disposition of the motion.” Mich.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39194 Filed 05/07/21 Page 11 of 19
`
`Dep’t of Treasury v. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d 731, 736 (E.D. Mich. 2002); see
`
`E.D. Mich. L.R. 7.1(h)(3). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a defect which is obvious, clear,
`
`unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d at 734.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Court should reconsider its April 28 Order because it has two “palpable
`
`defect[s],” and correcting either defect would “result[] in a different disposition” of
`
`FRS’s motion. Michalec, 181 F. Supp. 2d at 733.
`
`I.
`
`Under Rule 23, Non-Parties with Class-Member Interests May, Without
`Intervening, Seek Appropriate Relief in a Class Proceeding
`Because Rule 23 entitles putative class members like FRS (or any other class
`
`member seeking recovery from the End-Payor Settlements) to seek protection of
`
`their rights in a class proceeding, without intervening, the April 28 Order erred in
`
`holding that the Court lacked “authority” to grant relief to “a non-party.” ECF No.
`
`2134 at 2, PageID.39178. Specifically, Rule 23 entitles class members to “enter an
`
`appearance through an attorney if the member so desires,” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`23(c)(2)(B)(iv), and it grants the Court authority to “issue orders that,” among
`
`other things, “determine the course of proceedings” or “protect class members” by
`
`allowing them an “opportunity to . . . intervene . . . or to otherwise come into the
`
`action,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1) (emphasis added). These provisions give the
`
`Court ample “authority . . . to grant” FRS’s motion, even though “FRS remains a
`
`non-party,” pending appeal. ECF No. 2134 at 1-2, PageID.39177-39178. A
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39195 Filed 05/07/21 Page 12 of 19
`
`putative class member need not “go[] the full length of becoming a party through
`
`intervention” to ascertain or seek protection of its rights as a class member.
`
`3 Newberg on Class Actions § 9:37 (5th ed.) (“Newberg”); accord Knowles v. Butz,
`
`358 F. Supp. 228, 230 (N.D. Cal. 1973) (“There is, therefore, no need for these
`
`new class members to formally intervene.”). Likewise, the Due Process Clause
`
`requires that “absent class plaintiffs” receive, among other things, “an opportunity
`
`to be heard and participate in the litigation.” Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472
`
`U.S. 797, 811-12 (1985); see also 6 Newberg § 18:44 (discussing the “constellation
`
`of participatory protections” for absent class members).
`
`In support of the motion to compel, FRS cited Rule 23(c) in furtherance of
`
`the argument that, because absent class members also may “participate in
`
`proceedings before the Court” and “pursu[e] relief,” “without intervening,” it is
`
`“wrong” that “only parties to this action can file motions.” ECF No. 2126 at 8 n.4,
`
`PageID.39107. Therefore, the April 28 Order’s statement that “[FRS] cites no
`
`authority for the court to grant such a ‘motion to compel acceptance’ from a non-
`
`party” is incorrect. ECF No. 2134 at 2, PageID.39178.
`
`Because FRS has the rights of a class-member claimant by assignment and
`
`also represents the interests of other class-member claimants, it may, without
`
`intervening, request relief from the Court. Indeed, “purported members of the
`
`class” need not formally intervene in the class proceeding to “request . . . that the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39196 Filed 05/07/21 Page 13 of 19
`
`court interpret the class order so as to include [them] and on that basis direct the
`
`payment of [their] claims.” In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig., 695 F.2d 494, 499
`
`(3d Cir. 1982). In that circumstance, a putative class member need only “present
`
`[a] motion for resolution by the court,” id., which is what FRS did here. Moreover,
`
`the Sixth Circuit has construed Rule 23’s “appearance” provision to contemplate
`
`meaningful participation by absent class members and their counsel, including
`
`being listed on the docket, having their filings accepted by the court, and having
`
`the opportunity to be heard at proceedings that affect class members. See Moulton
`
`v. U.S. Steel Corp., 581 F.3d 344, 353 (6th Cir. 2009); see also Faber v. Ciox
`
`Health, LLC, 944 F.3d 593, 604 (6th Cir. 2019) (an “appearance” under Rule
`
`23(c)(2)(B)(iv) is made “to obtain favorable outcomes—not for its own sake”).
`
`The basis for the Court’s April 28 Order also is incorrect because, taken to
`
`its logical extreme, it would prevent non-party class members—that is, all class
`
`members other than the named plaintiffs—from participating and protecting their
`
`rights at later stages of the claims administration process. Non-party class
`
`members that submit proofs of claim have a right to object to recommendations
`
`that a claims administrator makes to a court about which claims to compensate,
`
`and to challenge the court’s decision to accept or reject those recommendations.
`
`See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B)(iv). Yet, the Court’s holding that it has no
`
`“authority” to grant relief to “non-party” claimants suggests that such claimants
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39197 Filed 05/07/21 Page 14 of 19
`
`may be denied the opportunity to challenge the recommended disposition of their
`
`claims, or the distribution of settlement funds, unless they spend the time and
`
`money formally to intervene—a cost that will be “not worth the[] effort” for the
`
`garden-variety class member who has relatively “little at stake.” 3 Newberg
`
`§ 9:30. That result would violate Rule 23, which is designed to protect class
`
`members. Moreover, courts would need to adjudicate individually motions to
`
`intervene by every class member who has enough at stake to justify the costs of
`
`seeking intervention, adding burden and delay to every class settlement
`
`administration. Accordingly, the Court should reconsider its holding regarding
`
`“non-party” claimants.
`
`II.
`
`FRS’s Motion To Compel Is Independent from FRS’s Prior Motion To
`Intervene and from FRS’s Pending Appeal
`Insofar as the April 28 Order concludes that the Court lacks authority to
`
`decide FRS’s motion to compel because that motion is related to (or seeks
`
`reconsideration of) FRS’s prior motion to intervene, see ECF No. 2134 at 1-2,
`
`PageID.39177-39178, that ruling misconstrues the nature of FRS’s motion to
`
`compel. The motion to compel raises issues about processing class members’
`
`claim information and thus is independent of FRS’s motion to intervene, which
`
`was filed to obtain a ruling regarding Insurers’ subrogation rights. FRS’s motion
`
`to compel neither seeks to make FRS a party nor depends upon FRS being a party.
`
`Rather, it asks the Court to enforce the Claims Administrator’s obligation to
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39198 Filed 05/07/21 Page 15 of 19
`
`claimants, who purport to be absent class members, not parties to the End Payor
`
`Actions.
`
`Under the Court-approved Plan of Allocation, the Claims Administrator
`
`must “use the information [claimants] provide in [their] Claim Form[s] . . . to
`
`determine whether [the claimant’s] Vehicle[s] contain[] one or more of the
`
`Automotive Parts.” 12-cv-403, ECF No. 301-2, PageID.11014. The Claims
`
`Administrator owes that obligation to all claimants—it does not depend on whether
`
`the Claims Administrator believes the Court ultimately will approve a given claim,
`
`or whether the claimant has intervened. Yet, as FRS’s motion to compel showed,
`
`the Claims Administrator has declined to fulfill its data-processing obligation for
`
`claimants who have supplemented timely filed claim forms with additional vehicle
`
`information. See ECF No. 2114 at 7-10, PageID.38318-21. FRS and its clients, as
`
`claimants, are just as entitled as all other claimants to have their vehicle
`
`information processed.1
`
`Moreover, whether or not FRS intervenes, the Claims Administrator’s
`
`refusal to process vehicle information will harm FRS and all similarly situated
`
`claimants. Not processing a claimant’s vehicle information harms that claimant by
`
`functionally nullifying its claim; there can be no basis to pay a claim until the
`
`
`1 Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is the Declaration of Daniel W. Shoag, Ph.D.,
`which provides additional information about FRS’s imminent submission of
`vehicle information for the Insurers’ Total Loss Vehicles.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39199 Filed 05/07/21 Page 16 of 19
`
`Claims Administrator “determine[s] whether [the claimant’s] Vehicle[s] contain[]
`
`one or more of the Automotive Parts,” 12-cv-403, ECF No. 301-2,
`
`PageID.11014—that is, determines whether the claimant’s vehicles are eligible to
`
`recover from the End Payor Settlements. The Claims Administrator’s abdication
`
`of its responsibilities has imposed this harm on FRS and its Insurer clients not only
`
`with regard to claims that are based on subrogation, but also claims based on the
`
`purchase of fleet vehicles—that is, claims that have nothing to do with
`
`subrogation. Moreover, the Claims Administrator’s actions threaten to harm
`
`several of FRS’s non-insurer clients, see Decl. of Robin M. Niemiec ¶¶ 2-3 (May
`
`5, 2021) (attached as Exhibit 1), as well as dozens of non-insurer claimants that
`
`FRS does not represent, see id. ¶ 4; ECF No. 2125-1 at 1-3, PageID.38551-38553.
`
`Neither making FRS a party nor deciding that the Insurers have subrogation rights
`
`would address or remedy these harms.
`
`Additionally, if the Court does not require the Claims Administrator to
`
`process claimants’ vehicle data now—when ample time to do so remains in the
`
`claims administration process—the Claims Administrator and Class Counsel may
`
`very well rely on such inaction to recommend at the end of the claims
`
`administration process that this Court deny claimants compensation. The Claims
`
`Administrator, without any authority provided by the Plan of Allocation or
`
`otherwise, is declining to process vehicle information from claimants it believes
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39200 Filed 05/07/21 Page 17 of 19
`
`should not recover, even though they timely submitted claim forms and are entitled
`
`to recover. By refusing to process these claimants’ vehicle information, the Claims
`
`Administrator is unlawfully attempting to short-circuit the claims administration
`
`process in a manner designed to preclude any evaluation of the merits of these
`
`claims. Accordingly, deferring this issue to the end of the claims administration
`
`process risks irreparable prejudice to eligible claimants. The Court should ensure
`
`that vehicle information is processed now to protect claimants’ rights to recover.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`The Court should reconsider its April 28 Order and grant FRS’s motion to
`
`compel. The Court should also permit oral argument to address the issues raised
`
`by FRS’s motion to compel and the present motion for reconsideration.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39201 Filed 05/07/21 Page 18 of 19
`
`Dated: May 7, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Laura S. Faussié
`Laura S. Faussié (P48933)
`Jonathan T. Walton, Jr. (P32969)
`FRASER TREBILCOCK
` DAVIS & DUNLAP, P.C.
`One Woodward Avenue, Suite 1550
`Detroit, MI 48226
`(313) 237-7300
`lfaussie@fraserlawfirm.com
`jwalton@fraserlawfirm.com
`
`Aaron M. Panner
`Matthew R. Huppert
`Daniel S. Severson
`KELLOGG, HANSEN, TODD,
` FIGEL & FREDERICK, P.L.L.C.
`1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`(202) 326-7900
`apanner@kellogghansen.com
`mhuppert@kellogghansen.com
`dseverson@kellogghansen.com
`
`Counsel for Financial Recovery
`Services, LLC
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-md-02311-SFC-RSW ECF No. 2137, PageID.39202 Filed 05/07/21 Page 19 of 19
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that, on May 7, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`document with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send
`
`notification of such filing to counsel of record.
`
`
`
` /s/ Laura S. Faussié
`Laura S. Faussié
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

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