Sioux Transportation, Inc. v. XPO Logistics, Inc. et al

Filing 20

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss Case Without Prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy L. Brooks on December 22, 2015. (src)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

SIOUX TRANSPORTATION, INC.

PLAINTIFF

CASE NO. 5:15-CV-05265

v.

XPO LOGISTICS, INC.,
XPO LOGISTICS, LLC, and
GARLAND YARBOROUGH

DEFENDANTS

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Currently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and for insufficient process and insufficient service of process. (Doc. 9). The
Motion has been fully briefed and is now ripe for decision . For the reasons stated
herein , Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with respect to the issue of
personal jurisdiction. The Motion is MOOT with respect to the issues of insufficient
process and insufficient service of process. The case is, accordingly, DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I.

BACKGROUND

This case arises from two postings made on logistics industry websites in
response to a shipment of frozen chicken gone wrong. Plaintiff Sioux Transportation ,
Inc. ("Sioux") is an Arkansas Corporation located in Washington County, Arkansas.
Sioux is a freight broker that obtains orders from shippers and other freight brokers to
transport freight for a certain fee. It then contracts with carriers to haul the freight, and
pays the carriers for this service . Defendant XPO Logistics, Inc. is a Delaware
Corporation with its principal place of business in Greenwich , Connecticut. It acts as a

1

holding company for a number of wholly-owned subsidiaries, including Defendant XPO
Logistics , LLC , which is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in
Greenwich , Connecticut (XPO Logistics, Inc. and XPO Logistics, LLC , collectively
"XPO").
In November of 2012 , XPO retained Sioux to make arrangements to transport a
trailer load of frozen poultry from Gadsen, Alabama , to Monroe, Michigan. Sioux then
contracted with a carrier, Original Mamaz Boyz, to transport the load . Upon arriving in
Michigan , the frozen chicken was apparently rejected by the consignee because the
internal temperature of the chicken was higher than what the product specification
called for. Sioux filed a claim for loss pursuant to its own insurance policy and also as
an additional insured under Original Mamaz Boyz' policy. Lloyds of London , the insurer
on both policies, denied the claims. XPO's insurer, Travelers Property Casualty
Company of America, paid for the loss of the product, and then pursued recovery for the
loss from Sioux.
Two years later, with the issue of ultimate liability apparently still unresolved ,
Defendant Garland Yarborough , Director of Brokerage Carrier Compliance for XPO,
posted negative statements about Sioux on Carrier 411 and TIA Watch Dog. The
purpose of both websites is to provide potential customers information on transportation
companies. Yarborough 's posting on Carrier 411 identifies Sioux as the "Reported
Company," and lists its address as "633 South Barrington Road Springdale , AR 72762 ."
(Doc. 9-1 , p. 6). Under "Reported Items," Yarborough includes (i) unauthorized rebrokering of shipment; (ii) theft or unjustified loss of freight; (iii) unresolved claim issues;

2

(iv) fraudulent activity; and (v) unethical or deceptive business practices. Id. Under
"Reported Comments," Yarborough writes:
SIOUX TRANSPORT PICKED UP A LOAD ON 11/07/12 AND
DELIVERED ON 11/12/12. THE PRODUCT WAS DAMAGED DUE TO
TEMP CONTROL ISSUES. THE LOAD WAS ALSO DOUBLE
BROKERED . THE DELIVERING CARRIER'S COVERAGE HAS DENIED
CLAIM AND SIOUX'S COVERAGE HAS NOT RESPONDED . WE HAVE
MADE NUMEROUS ATTEMPTS IN THE 2 YEARS THAT THIS CLAIM
HAS AGED AND NO RESPONSE FROM CARRIER. THIS WAS A 43K
CLAIM THAT HAS GONE UNSETTLED DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF
SIOUX'S [sic] TRANSPORT.
Id. A person named Stephen West, apparently writing on behalf of Sioux, responded to
Yarborough 's complaint as follows:
LOAD WAS NO REBROKERED , INFACT XPO BROKERED LOAD ,
THERE WAS NO LOSS OF FREIGHT. THE ONLY THING ON THIS
REPORT THAT HOLDS ANY MERIT IS NUMBER 3. UNRESOLVED
CLIAM , THE REST OF THESE ALLOCATIONS ARE JUST NOT TRUE.
FRAUDULENT ACTIVITY AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES .
THERE AGAIN SIMPLY NOT TRUE , WE HAVE BEEN IN BUISNESS
SENCE 1980, U DONT STAY IN BUISNESS FOR 34 YEARS THATS
12410 DAYS . SIOUX TRANSPORTATION HAS NEVER BEEN
SLANDERED BY SUCH ACCUSATIONS LIASTED IN REPORTED
ITEMS, THIS HAD A TEMP.
STEPHEN WEST
Id. (all errors in original). The printout of the statement made on TIA Watchdog
appearing in the record is almost wholly illegible , except that the statement was made
by Yarborough and it identified Sioux as being located in Springdale , Arkansas. (Doc. 91, p. 7).
Sioux filed suit in the Circuit Court of Washington County, Arkansas , and XPO
removed the case to this Court on October 23 , 2015. Sioux's Complaint asserts claims
for defamation , false light, a violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
and interference with business expectancy. Defendants have responded by filing the

3

Motion to Dismiss currently before the Court, primarily arguing that this Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over them .
II. LEGAL STANDARD
'To allege personal jurisdiction , 'a plaintiff must state sufficient facts in the
complaint to support a reasonable inference that the defendant can be subjected to
jurisdiction within the state. "' Wells Dairy, Inc. v. Food Movers Int'/, 607 F.3d 515, 518
(8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Dever v. Hentzen Coatings, Inc., 380 F.3d 1070, 1072 (8th Cir.
2004)) (alteration omitted). The Court "must view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff and resolve all factual conflicts in the plaintiff's favor. " Digi-Tel
Holdings, Inc. v. Proteq Telecomm. (PTE), Ltd., 89 F.3d 519 , 522 (8th Cir. 1996).

However, Sioux bears the burden of proving sufficient facts to support a prima facie
showing of personal jurisdiction. Wells Dairy, 607 F.3d at 518. "The plaintiff's prima
facie showing must be tested , not by the pleadings alone, but by the affidavits and
exhibits presented with the motions and opposition thereto ." Id.
The Arkansas long-arm statute authorizes the exercise of personal jurisdiction "to
the maximum extent permitted by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution ." Ark. Code Ann . § 16-4-101 . Therefore ,
the only question here is whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Defendants
is constitutionally permissible. The Due Process Clause allows courts to exercise
personal jurisdiction only when a defendant has "certain minimum contacts" with the
forum state "such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of
fair play and substantial justice." Int'/ Shoe Co. v. Washington , 326 U.S. 310 , 316
(1945). This standard "presaged the development of two categories of personal

4

jurisdiction": general jurisdiction and specific jurisdiction. Daimler AG v. Bauman , 134 S.
Ct. 746 , 754(2014).
General jurisdiction allows a court to hear "any and all claims" against a
defendant. Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S .A. v. Brown , 131 S. Ct. 2846 , 2851
(2011 ). In the case of a defendant corporation , the Due Process Clause permits a court
to exercise general jurisdiction only when the defendant's "affiliations with the State are
so continuous and systematic as to render them essentially at home in the forum State. "
Id. (quotation omitted). "The place of incorporation and principal place of business" are

the "paradigm bases for general jurisdiction" over a corporation. Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at
760 (alteration and quotation omitted).
"Specific jurisdiction, on the other hand , depends on an affiliation between the
forum and the underlying controversy, principally, activity or an occurrence that takes
place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation ." Goodyear,
131 S. Ct. at 2851 (alteration and quotation omitted). Its exercise is "confined to
adjud ication of issues deriving from , or connected with , the very controversy that
establishes jurisdiction ." Id. (quotation omitted). "The inquiry whether a forum State may
assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant 'focuses on the relationship
among the defendant, the forum , and the litigation. "' Walden v. Fiore , 134 S. Ct. 1115,
1121 (2014) (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc. , 465 U.S. 770 , 775 (1984))
(internal quotation omitted).
The Eighth Circuit has crafted a five-part test to help the district courts determine
whether a defendant has minimum contacts such that a suit does not offend traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice: (i) the nature and quality of contacts with the

5

forum state; (ii) the quantity of such contacts; (iii) the relation of the cause of action to
the contacts; (iv) the interest of the forum state in providing a forum for its residents ; and
(v) the convenience of the parties. See Land-0-Nod Co. v. Bassett Furniture Indus.,

Inc. , 708 F.2d 1338, 1340 (8th Cir. 1983). The last two factors are of secondary
importance, id. , and the third factor applies only in the specific jurisdiction context. See

Wilcosky v. Swift Transp. Corp., 2008 WL 2562959 , *2 (W.D. Ark. June 24, 2008).
Ill. DISCUSSION
A. General Jurisdiction
Sioux maintains that the Court has general jurisdiction over XPO based on
XPO's offices in the state,1 its ability to transport freight through the state , its potential
hiring of employees from the state , and its occasional communication with , and
retention of, carriers based in the state. These bases are, however, insufficient tb
establish general jurisdiction over XPO . As this Court recently recognized , "in recent
years, the Supreme Court has clarified and , it is fair to say, raised the bar for general
jurisdiction ." Merryman v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 2015 WL 7308666 , *2 (W.D.
Ark. Nov. 19, 2015) (alteration and quotation omitted). Thus in Daimler, 134 S. Ct. at
746 , the Supreme Court held that California did not have general jurisd iction over
Daimler despite its assumption that Daimler's exclusive U.S. subsidiary for importing

1

Sioux states that XPO has several offices in Arkansas , while XPO counters that the
offices listed on its website as being in Arkansas are actually those of affiliates and
subsidiaries, not attributable to XPO . The Court does not consider the matter material to
the general jurisdiction question, as it lacks general jurisdiction over XPO either way.

6

and distributing vehicles was "at home"2 in the state and that the subsidiary's contacts
were imputable to Daimler. The subsidiary was the largest supplier of luxury vehicles to
California , and had large offices in the state. Id. at 752. Still , the Supreme Court found
that a formulation of general jurisdiction that would subject Daimler to suit in California
based on conduct unrelated to that state would be "unacceptably grasping" such that
Daimler would be subject to such a suit in any state in which it had sizeable sales. Id. at
761. That is of particular concern , this Court notes, in light of the nationally, and indeed
globally, interconnected economy in which corporations now operate.
Instead , Due Process requires a corporation to be "essentially at home in the
forum State" for a court to have general jurisdiction over it. Id. (quoting Goodyear, 131
S. Ct. at 2851 ). Daimler makes clear that rarely, if ever, will a corporation be "at home"
in a state in which it is not incorporated or does not have its principal place of business.
Given the limited scope of XPO's contacts with Arkansas , this certainly is not such a
case .

B. Specific Jurisdiction
Sioux first contends that the Court has specific jurisdiction over XPO by virtue of
the business relationship between the parties. XPO has benefited from services
provided by Sioux in Arkansas, communicated with Sioux's Arkansas staff, and
contracted for services to be performed in Arkansas . As support for its contention that
these contacts are sufficient to create specific jurisdiction, Sioux primarily relies on
cases sound ing in breach of contract. See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S.

2

The Court assumed that the subsidiary was "at home" in California despite it being a
Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey because
Daimler failed to object to that finding below. Id. at 758.
7

462 (1985); Wessels, Arnold & Henderson v. Nat'/ Med. Waste, Inc., 65 F.3d 1427 (8th
Cir. 1995); Northrup King Co. v. Compania Productora Semi/las Algodoneras Se/ectas,
S.A. , 51 F.3d 1383 (8th Cir. 1995); Caesar's World, Inc. v. Spencer Foods, Inc., 498

F.2d 1176 (8th Cir. 1974 ); J & V Rest. Supply & Refrigeration, Inc. v. Supreme Fixture
Co., 76 Ark. App . 505 (2002). In such cases , the defendants' contacts with the forum
state pursuant to the negotiation , entering , and performance of the contract bear an
incredibly close relation to the cause of action . This tight nexus is precisely why in-state
plaintiffs can often maintain breach of contract actions against out-of-state defendants
without running afoul of the Due Process Clause. Assuming the quality and quantity of
the contacts are sufficient, the Eighth Circuit's five-part test will almost always be met,
given how the aforementioned nexus satisfies the test's third , "relatedness ," prong .
This, however, is not a breach of contract case. Instead it is a defamation case 3
involving two online posts made by an XPO employee after a single transaction with
Sioux went awry. XPO's underlying conduct- its contact with Arkansas during its
business relationship with Sioux-is much less closely related to the causes of action in
this case than it would be in a breach of contract case. Moreover, XPO's contact with
Arkansas was de minimis. While XPO contacted Arkansas by communicating with
Sioux, mail and telephone contacts "alone are insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction
... ." Wessels , 65 F.3d at 1433. Though such commun ications "remain a consideration"

in the analysis, in this case they arguably do not provide evidence of "a continuous,
systematic business relationship" that would permit the exercise of specific jurisdiction
even in a breach of contract action , let alone a defamation case. Id. This is so because
3

The Court uses the term "defamation" as shorthand to refer to all of the counts in this
case, which all arise out of the on line posts.

8

most of the performance related to the parties' agreement occurred outside of
Arkansas , on the road from Alabama to Michigan . Aside from XPO's communications
with Sioux, the only other act performed in Arkansas was Sioux's coordination with
Original Mamaz Boyz to transport the frozen poultry. Given the limited nature of XPO's
contacts with Arkansas , and given the attenuation of those contacts from the cause of
action , the first three prongs of the Eight Circuit's minimum contacts test are lacking .
Sioux also argues that the Court has specific jurisdiction over XPO and
Yarborough based on Yarborough 's online posts. It asserts that these posts are
attributable as contacts to Arkansas due to the effects that the posts caused in the
state . This formulation comes from Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). In Calder,
actress Shirley Jones sued the National Enquirer and related persons for libel in
California state court. Although the defendants were all residents of Florida , the
Supreme Court held that California had jurisdiction over them because their allegedly
tortious actions were "expressly aimed at California. " Id. at 789 . Defendants knew that
the article in question "would have a potentially devastating impact upon [Jones]. And
they knew that the brunt of that injury would be felt by [her] in the State in which she
lives and works and in wh ich the National Enquirer has its largest circulation ." Id. at 78990 .
Sioux seizes on th is language from Calder and asserts that the instant case is
favorably analogous to it. However, as Sioux recognizes in its Response Brief, Doc. 15,
p. 12, the Eighth Circuit "construe[s] the Calder effects test narrowly ... ." Johnson v.

Arden , 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010). In Johnson , the Eighth Circuit explained that
Calder's effects test provides that

9

a defendant's tortious acts can serve as a source of personal jurisdiction
only where the plaintiff makes a prima facie showing that the defendant's
acts (1) were intentional , (2) were uniquely or expressly aimed at the
forum state , and (3) caused harm , the brunt of which was suffered-and
which the defendant knew was likely to be suffered-in the forum state .
Id. at 796 (quoting Lindgren v. GOT, LLC, 312 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1132 (S.D . Iowa

2004)) (alteration omitted) . It then applied this standard to facts strikingly similar to the
instant case . The plaintiffs in Johnson were a company and its owners who operated a
cat breeding business, called the Cozy Kitten Cattery, out of Missouri. Id. at 788 . They
sued , among other parties, Kathleen Heineman, a Colorado resident who had a past
business relationship with the plaintiffs. Specifically, between 2002 and 2006 , Heineman
purchased 16 cats on the plaintiffs' behalf, at times delivering them to Missouri, and also
purchased approximately 50 advertisements on their website. Id. at 788-89 . Sometime
later, Heineman allegedly posted defamatory statements about the plaintiffs on
www.ComplaintBoards.com. She wrote that "Sue Johnson and Cozy Kittens operated
from Unionville, Missouri , where they killed cats, sold infected cats and kittens , brutally
killed and tortured unwanted cats and operated a 'kitten mill' in Unionville, Missouri." Id.
at 796. Although Heineman , like Defendants in this case , specifically identified the
location of the plaintiffs' business, the Johnson Court found that the statement
fails to show that Heineman uniquely or expressly aimed her statement at
Missouri. The statements were aimed at the Johnsons; the inclusion of
"Missouri" in the posting was incidental and not performed for the very
purpose of having their consequences felt in Missouri. There is no
evidence that the www.Complaints Board .com website specifically targets
Missouri , or that the content of Heineman's alleged postings specifically
targeted Missouri .
Id. (quotation omitted). Additionally, Johnson explained , "even

if the effect of

Heineman's alleged statement was felt in Missouri , we have used the Calder test merely

10

as an additional factor to consider when evaluating a defendant's relevant contacts with
the forum state. " Id. at 796-97 . In looking for other contacts to Missouri, the Johnson
Court apparently did not consider Heineman's prior business relationship with the
plaintiffs to be relevant, as it found that there were "no additional contacts between
Heineman and Missouri to justify conferring personal jurisdiction ." Id. at 797 .
Both Johnson and the instant case involve allegedly defamatory statements
made online from another state; both involve statements that identify the plaintiffs'
location; and both involve parties that had , at least at one time , a business relationship .
Given these similarities , there is no basis upon which this Court can materially
distinguish Johnson to justify a departure from its holding . The Court therefore finds that
Sioux cannot establish that Defendants had minimum contacts with Arkansas through
the Calder effects test.
Finally, the parties dispute whether the well-known Zippo test is helpful to
determine specific jurisdiction in this case . The Zippo test comes from Zippo Mfg., Co. v.
Zippo Dot Com, Inc. , 952 F. Supp . 1119 (W.D . Penn . 1997). In one of the most widely

cited district court cases in the country,4 Zippo Manufacturing brought a trademark
dilution action against Zippo Dot Com over its use of "Zippo" and reg istration of several
domain names including that word . Id. at 1121 -22 . Zippo Dot Com was located in
California , and so the court had to determine whether Zippo Dot Com 's operation of a
website accessible in Pennsylvania created jurisdiction in that state . To answer this
question , the court crafted a "sliding scale" based on "the nature and quality of
commercial activity that an entity conducts over the Internet. " Id. at 1124. On one end of
4

According to Westlaw, as of the writing of this Opinion , the case has been cited 5,699
times.
11

the scale "are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet. If
the defendant enters into contracts with residents of a foreign jurisdiction that involve
the knowing and repeated transmission of computer files over the Internet, personal
jurisdiction is proper. " Id. On the other end are "situations where a defendant has simply
posted information on an Internet Web site which is accessible to users in foreign
jurisdictions. A passive Web site that does little more than make information available to
those who are interested in it is not grounds for the exercise [of] personal jurisdiction."
Id. Finally, "[t]he middle ground is occupied by interactive Web sites where a user can

exchange information with the host computer. In these cases , the exercise of jurisdiction
is determined by examining the level of interactivity and commercial nature of the
exchange of information that occurs on the Web site. " Id.
The Eighth Circuit has found the Zippo test helpful to determine the sufficiency of
internet contacts under the specific jurisdiction analysis . Johnson , 614 F.3d at 796 .
Indeed , Johnson controls the outcome of the Zippo inquiry in this case. Johnson found
that www.ComplaintsBoard .com , a website clearly similar to the ones in this case, fell
on the passive end of the sliding scale . Id. It noted that although the owner of
www.ComplaintsBoard .com represented it as an interactive website, "users may
actually only post information . There is no interaction between users and a host
computer; the site merely makes information available to other people ." Id. Accordingly,
Sioux cannot rely on the Zippo test to establish this Court's jurisdiction over
Defendants.5

5

Sioux actually reaches a similar outcome in its Response Brief. It insinuates that the
Zippo test is inapplicable to this case because that test applies to the owners and

12

In the instant case, the Court had the difficulty in considering the Zippo test in
the context of the modern internet. The internet has undergone tremendous change
since Zippo was decided in 1997, and even since Johnson in 2010 . Cloud computing
has eliminated the need for downloading files in many situations, location-based
technology has made online interactions that formerly existed only in cyberspace more
closely tied to specific geographic locations, and the level of user interaction with
websites has exploded with social media. All of this calls into question the modern
usefulness of the Zippo test's simplistic tri-parte framework: The transmission of
computer files over the internet is perhaps no longer an accurate measurement of a
website's contact to a forum state .
This latter change-the increased level of user interaction-presents particular
challenges in applying the Zippo test in the context of a defamation case brought
against a user of a website, not the website's owner. First, whether the website that the
user posted to is engaged in commercial activity is plainly inapposite to the user's
contact to the forum jurisdiction. For example, a user could libel an online product in the
review section of the website on which it is sold-a website that would clearly be
engaged in online commercial activity. Or, the same user could libel the product on a
widely-read message board that lacks any commercial purpose . The commercial nature
of the underlying website in that example is irrelevant to the manner in which the user
contacts, or does not contact, the forum state.

operators of websites , not to users of the sites. Sioux instead relies on the Calder
effects test, discussed supra.

13

The distinction between the passive and interactive categories on the Zippo scale
is irrelevant to the user-based defamation inquiry as well ,6 as a passive website , by
definition, would not allow a user to post content. This means that any defamation case
against a user will involve an interactive website, falling in the middle of the Zippo scale.
For these reasons , it is this Court's opinion that if the Zippo scale is to be applied
in the user-based defamation context at all ,7 it should focus not on the nature of the
underlying website, but on the nature of the content posted by the user. The Court
believes that this was the conclusion that the Johnson Court implicitly came to when it
held that Heineman's post was passive. Such a conclusion explains how the Johnson
Court reached that decision when , clearly, the underlying website was interactive, as it
allowed users to interact with the site by posting information on it. However, the content
posted by Heineman in that case was clearly passive , justifying the resultant finding of
no specific jurisdiction. Accordingly, whether the Eighth Circuit applies the Zippo test in

6

This distinction may, additionally, be categorically outdated at this point. When the
Zippo Court was writing , the internet was comprised in large part by websites that
simply posted information. Today, however, most websites have interactive features.
See Dennis T. Yokoyama , You Can't Always Use the Zippo Code: The Fallacy of A
Uniform Theory of Internet Personal Jurisdiction, 54 DePaul L. Rev. 1147, 1167 (2005).

7

The better approach , in light of today's internet, may be to scrap the Zippo test in the
context of online defamation altogether, and to instead rely solely on the Calder effects
test. See Patrick J. Borchers, Internet Libel: The Consequences of A Non-Rule
Approach to Personal Jurisdiction, 98 Nw. U. L. Rev. 473, 489 (2004) (arguing that
courts should disregard Zippo in online libel cases because "the degree to which the
reader can interact with the producer of the allegedly libelous statements has little
relevance ." ); Yokoyama , supra note 6, at 1176 (arguing that "the Zippo test is
inappropriate because the interactivity of the site , or lack thereof, may have little or
nothing to do with the harm suffered by the plaintiff and thus should have little or no
relevance in determining personal jurisdiction in a defamation case. ").

14

the defamation context to the underlying website , or to the user's content, Defendants
have not had sufficient contact with Arkansas to confer jurisdiction upon this Court.
C. INSUFFICIENT PROCESS AND INSUFFICIENT SERVICE OF PROCESS
Since Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was filed , Sioux properly served notice to
Yarborough . (Doc. 13). This, along with the fact that the Court lacks jurisdiction over this
case , renders Defendants' argument moot.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein , Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED with
respect to the issue of personal jurisdiction. The Motion is MOOT with respect to the
issues of insufficient process and insufficient service of process. The case is,
:JUDICE.
accordingly, DISMISSED WITHOUT PR
IT IS SO ORDERED on

this ~ day of Decem
KS
DISTRICT JUDGE

15