Bozic v. Den Uijl et al
Filing
42
ORDER granting Defendants' Motion to Change Venue. Case transferred to the Eastern District of California. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 1/31/2017. (jah) [Transferred from casd on 2/2/2017.]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
REGINA BOZIC, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public,
13
14
Case No. 16-cv-733-BAS(MDD)
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUE
Plaintiff,
15
[ECF No. 38]
v.
16
HENNY DEN UIJL, et al.,
17
Defendants.
18
19
20
Plaintiff Regina Bozic commenced this class action against numerous
21
defendants, including Obesity Research Institute (“ORI”), Henny Den Uijl, and
22
Bryan Corlett, arising from allegations of misrepresentation and fraud related to a
23
weight-loss product known as Lipozene. Defendants now move to stay this action
24
under the Colorado River doctrine, or alternatively, transfer this action to the Eastern
25
District of California for consolidation with an earlier-filed action under the “first-
26
to-file” rule.
27
//
28
//
–1–
16cv733
1
The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted
2
and without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the
3
following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to transfer this action to
4
the Eastern District of California.
5
6
I.
BACKGROUND1
7
On March 29, 2016, Plaintiff commenced this action alleging that Defendants
8
made misrepresentations and false statements in the advertising, marketing, and sale
9
of the weight-loss product known as Lipozene.2 (Compl. ¶ 6.) These statements were
10
allegedly made on Lipozene’s packaging in addition to online and television
11
marketing, advertisements, and “fake testimonials.” (Id. ¶¶ 74-85.) A sample of these
12
statements include representations that Lipozene is “Clinically Proven” and that it
13
helps consumers “Lose Weight Without Diet or Exercise,” “Helps Reduce Weight,”
14
and “Helps Reduce Body Fat.” (Id. ¶¶ 4, 74-75.) Other representations also include
15
claims that a “Clinical Study Proves: 78% of weight lost is pure body fat,” and “In a
16
double blind study, not only did participants lose weight but 78% of each pound lost
17
was pure body fat!” (Id. ¶ 75.)
18
Based on these and other allegations in the complaint, Plaintiff asserts nine
19
claims for: (1) declaratory judgment of Plaintiff and the putative class’ rights “as
20
Intended Beneficiaries to the 2005 Stipulated Final Judgment contract that was
21
entered into between Defendants and the Federal Trade Commission”; (2) intentional
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Both parties request judicial notice of various documents, mostly consisting of court
filings. Insofar as the Court relies on any of these filings, the Court GRANTS the parties’ request
for judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741,
746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (“We may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public
record.); United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244,
248 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[W]e may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without
the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.”). The
Court DENIES all remaining requests for judicial notice.
2
Defendants Bryan Corlett and Conversion Systems have since been dismissed from this
action. The former was voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff, and the latter was dismissed by the Court
at the joint request of the parties. (ECF Nos. 23, 37.)
1
–2–
16cv733
1
misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) quasi-
2
contract / unjust enrichment; (5) violations of the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”);
3
(6) violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”); (7) false advertising;
4
(8) breach of express warranty; and (9) breach of the implied warranty of
5
merchantability.
6
The complaint includes two proposed class definitions: (1) the Intended
7
Beneficiary Class; and (2) the Consumer Fraud Classes. With certain exclusions, the
8
proposed class for the former is defined as:
All purchasers of the Lipozene Products in the United
States for personal or household use and not for resale
from the time when the Products entered into the stream
of commerce until the time that a final judgment is entered,
or within the statute of limitations period, or as otherwise
ordered by the Court.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
(Compl. ¶¶ 117-18.) And the proposed class for the latter is defined as:
All purchasers of Lipozene in the United States for
personal or household use and not for resale from August
19, 2014 until the date of class certification, or as
otherwise deemed appropriate by the Court.
Alternatively, purchasers of Lipozene in the United States
for personal or household use and not for resale during the
applicable statute of limitations period not to exceed four
years prior to Plaintiffs filing of this complaint.
(Compl. ¶ 126.)
21
Prior to the commencement of this action, two similar class actions related to
22
Lipozene against ORI and other defendants in this action were filed in the San Diego
23
Superior Court, Duran v. Obesity Research Institute, LLC, No. 37-2013-00048664-
24
CU-BT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct. May 13, 2013), and the Eastern District of California,
25
Fernandez v. Obesity Research Institute, LLC, No. 13-cv-00975-MCE-KJN (E.D.
26
Cal. May 16, 2013). The actions commenced within days of each other in May 2013.
27
Both also reference a 2005 Stipulated Final Judgment with the Federal Trade
28
Commission regarding marketing glucomanna-based products, such as Lipozene.
–3–
16cv733
1
A.
2
The Duran class action, which commenced May 13, 2013, arose from ORI’s
3
“manufacture[], market[ing], and sell[ing] [of] the diet supplement known as
4
Lipozene[.]” (Duran Compl. ¶ 1.) Some of the allegedly false or misleading
5
statements made by ORI included: (1) ORI “market[ing] and sell[ing] Lipozene as a
6
‘Safe and Effective’ ‘weight-loss breakthrough’ that is ‘clinically proven to help you
7
lose weight and pure body fat’”; (2) “the package label for Lipozene represent[ing]
8
that ‘78% of each pound lost [is] pure body fat,’ and the commercial for Lipozene
9
show[ing] an animated pill directly dissolving body fact on contact”; and (3) “the
10
website for Lipozene represent[ing] that the product will ‘get rid of pounds of body
11
fat,’ ‘has no known side effects,’ and ‘can help you lose weight without a change in
12
lifestyle.’” (Id.)
Duran
13
Based on these and other allegations in the complaint, the Duran plaintiff
14
asserted five claims for: (1) violations of the CLRA; (2) unlawful business acts and
15
practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200; (3) false
16
advertising; (4) breach of express warranty; and (5) breach of implied warranty.
17
18
19
20
21
The proposed classes in Duran are defined as:
All persons, nationwide, who purchased Obesity Research
Institute diet products after August 10, 2012 until the date
notice is disseminated. Excluded from the Class are
Defendants' officers, directors and employees and those
who purchased Obesity Research Institute diet products
for the purpose of resale.
22
(Duran Compl. ¶ 19 (emphasis added).) The Duran plaintiff also brought the class
23
27
action on behalf of:
All persons who purchased Obesity Research Institute diet
products in the State of California after August 10, 2012
until the date notice is disseminated. Excluded from the
Class are Defendants’ officers, directors and employees
and those who purchased Obesity Research Institute diet
products for the purpose of resale.
28
(Id. ¶ 20.)
24
25
26
–4–
16cv733
1
In November 2013, the Duran parties began the process of settling the class
2
action when they filed their joint motion for preliminary settlement approval.
3
(Mulkern Decl. ¶ 4.) In August 2014, the initial notice of settlement was published,
4
and in January 2015, the parties moved for final settlement approval. (Id.) On March
5
24, 2015, the settlement was approved by the court and judgment was entered
6
accordingly. (Id.)
7
Thereafter, objectors appealed to the California Court of Appeal, asserting: (1)
8
“the settlement is the product of collusion”; (2) “the class did not receive sufficient
9
notice of settlement, and the settlement is unreasonable and inadequate”; and (3) “the
10
attorney fee award is excessive.” Duran v. Obesity Research Inst., LLC, 1 Cal. App.
11
5th 635, 637-38 (2016). The Duran objectors are plaintiffs in the competing putative
12
class action, Fernandez, against ORI. Duran, 1 Cal. App. 5th at 642.
13
In reviewing the objectors’ appeal, the Court of Appeal identified a defect in
14
the class notice, necessitating reversal of the judgment “because the class notice
15
failed in its fundamental purpose—to apprise class members of the terms of the
16
proposed settlement.” Id. at 638. It further explained that “[t]he erroneous notice
17
injected a fatal flaw into the entire settlement process and undermines the court’s
18
analysis of the settlement’s fairness.” Id. (citing In re Veritas Software Corp. Sec.
19
Litig., 496 F.3d 962, 972 (9th Cir. 2007). Ultimately, the Court of Appeal reversed
20
the lower court’s judgment, attorney fees award, and incentive payment, and
21
remanded with additional guidance “[f]or the benefit of the parties.” Id. at 647, 653.
22
23
B.
24
Similarly, the Fernandez class action, which commenced May 16, 2013, was
25
brought “on behalf of purchasers of Lipozene, which is marketed by the Defendants
26
[including ORI] as a ‘weight-loss breakthrough’ that will ‘get rid of pounds of body
27
fat’ ‘without a change in lifestyle.’” (Fernandez Compl. ¶ 4.) A sample of the
28
allegedly false or misleading statements on Lipozene labeling and advertising
Fernandez
–5–
16cv733
1
included: (1) “LOSE PURE BODY FAT”; (2) “Safe and Effective”; (3) “78% of
2
weight lost is pure body fat”; (4) “Clinically Proven”; (5) “has no known side
3
effects”; and (6) “can help you lose weight without a change in lifestyle.” (Id. ¶ 8.)
4
The Fernandez plaintiffs also highlight that “Lipozene’s labeling and advertising
5
depict[s] an animated Lipozene pill directly dissolving body fat on contact,” which
6
is also purportedly false and misleading. (Id.)
7
The Fernandez plaintiffs asserted seven claims for: (1) violation of the
8
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301; (2) breach of express
9
warranty; (3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; (4) unjust
10
enrichment; (5) violations of the CLRA; (6) violations of the unfair competition law;
11
and (7) false advertising. The Fernandez plaintiff sought to represent a class defined
12
as “all persons in the United States who purchased Lipozene on or after August 10,
13
2012, excluding those who purchased Lipzoene for resale[,]” and a “subclass of all
14
Class members who purchased Lipozene in the State of California for personal,
15
family or household purposes on or after August 10, 2012[.]” (Fernandez Compl. ¶¶
16
120-21.)
17
In August 2013, the Fernandez Court denied the defendants’ request to transfer
18
venue to the Southern District of California and stayed the action pending the
19
resolution of Duran. Fernandez v. Obesity Research Inst., LLC, No. 2:13-cv-00975-
20
MCE-LJN, 2013 WL 4587005, at *2-3, 6-7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2013). The court
21
denied the transfer, in part, “because a substantial part of the events occurred within”
22
and the plaintiffs also live in the Eastern District. Id. at *3. It imposed the stay, in
23
part, out of “concern[] that it and the San Diego Superior Court [in Duran] may reach
24
different conclusions on identical issues if the cases proceed simultaneously[,]” and
25
the belief that it would not be “a wise use of judicial resources to duplicate the San
26
Diego Superior Court’s effort and possibly issue a conflicting decision.” Id. at *6-7.
27
//
28
//
–6–
16cv733
1
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
2
“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
3
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it
4
might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have
5
consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The purpose of section 1404(a) “is to prevent the
6
waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public
7
against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S.
8
612, 616 (1964) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court has the broad
9
discretion “to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-
10
by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh
11
Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622).
12
The Ninth Circuit requires that courts consider a variety of factors in
13
determining whether to transfer an action. See Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211
14
F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000); Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805
15
F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The relevant factors are: (1) plaintiff's choice of forum,
16
(2) convenience of the parties, (3) convenience of the witnesses, (4) ease of access to
17
the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the applicable law, (6) feasibility of
18
consolidation of other claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the
19
relative court congestion and time of trial in each forum. Barnes & Noble v. LSI
20
Corp., 823 F. Supp. 2d 980, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2011). The burden is on the party seeking
21
transfer to show that when these factors are applied, the balance of convenience
22
clearly favors transfer. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d
23
270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). It is not enough for the defendant to merely show that it
24
prefers another forum, and transfer will also not be allowed if the result is merely to
25
shift the inconvenience from one party to another. Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 645-46.
26
//
27
//
28
//
–7–
16cv733
1
III.
DISCUSSION
2
“The ‘first to file’ rule normally serves the purpose of promoting efficiency
3
well and should not be disregarded lightly.” Church of Scientology of Cal. v. U.S.
4
Dep’t of the Army, 611 F.2d 738, 749 (9th Cir. 1979). “When applying the first-to-
5
file rule, courts should be driven to maximize ‘economy, consistency, and comity.’”
6
Kohn Law Grp. Inc. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., 787F.3d 1237, 1240 (quoting Cadle
7
Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599, 604 (5th Cir. 1999)). The rule may
8
be applied “when a complaint involving the same parties and issues has already been
9
filed in another district.” Id. (quoting Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Prods., Inc., 946 F.2d
10
622, 625 (9th Cir. 1991)). In a class action, the court compares the classes, and not
11
the class representatives. Ross v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 542 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1020
12
(N.D. Cal. 2008).
13
The first-to-file rule “allows a district court to transfer, stay, or dismiss an
14
action when a similar complaint has already been filed in another federal court.”
15
Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 623. A district court examines three factors in deciding whether
16
to apply the rule: (1) the chronology of the two actions; (2) the identity of the parties
17
involved; and (3) the similarity of the issues at stake. Id. at 625. However, the rule is
18
“not a rigid or inflexible rule to be mechanically applied, but rather is to be applied
19
with a view to the dictates of sound judicial administration.” Pacesetter Systems, Inc.
20
v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 95 (9th Cir. 1982). “The circumstances under which
21
an exception to the first-to-file rule typically will be made include bad faith,
22
anticipatory suit, and forum shopping.” Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 628 (internal quotations
23
omitted). Further, “[a]n ample degree of discretion, appropriate for disciplined and
24
experienced judges, must be left to the lower courts.” Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two
25
Fire Equip. Co., 342 U.S. 180, 183-84 (1952).
26
Under the “first-to-file rule,” the court is not required to give consideration to
27
the same factors as it would under motions to transfer brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
28
§ 1404(a). See Pacesetter Systems, 678 F.2d at 96. But “[i]n appropriate cases it
–8–
16cv733
1
would be relevant for the court in the second-filed action to give consideration to the
2
convenience of the parties and witnesses.” Id. “However, normally the forum non
3
conveniens argument should be addressed to the court in the first-filed action.” Id.;
4
see also Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 928.
5
6
A.
Chronology
7
Though Duran is the action that has proceeded the furthest, nearing
8
completion, because Duran is being litigated in state court, this Court considers
9
whether transferring this action to the Eastern District of California for consolidation
10
with Fernandez is appropriate. See Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 623. Comparing Fernandez
11
and this action, there is no doubt that the first-to-file rule’s chronology requirement
12
is satisfied: Fernandez commenced on May 16, 2013 while this action commenced
13
on almost three years later on March 29, 2016. (See Defs.’ RJN Ex. 6.)
14
15
B.
Identity of Parties
16
“Regarding similarity of the parties, courts have held that the first-to-file rule
17
does not require exact identity of the parties.” Kohn Law, 787 F.3d at 1240. “Rather,
18
the first-to-file rule requires only substantial similarity of the parties.” Id. Because
19
this case is a class action, the Court starts with an examination of the proposed classes
20
in the two actions. See Ross, 542 F. Supp. 2d at 1020.
21
In Fernandez, the plaintiffs defined the proposed class as all consumers who
22
purchased Lipozene on or after August 10, 2012 with a sub-class for California
23
consumers. (Fernandez Compl. ¶¶ 120-21.) The class period is open ended. (Id.)
24
Though this action has two proposed classes, both cover consumers who purchased
25
Lipozene, with the Consumer Fraud Class defining the class period from purchases
26
that occurred on August 19, 2014 “until the date of class certification, or as otherwise
27
deemed appropriate by the Court.” (Compl. ¶¶ 117-18, 126.) The other class in this
28
action, the “Intended Beneficiary Class,” is only relevant to the first claim (out of
–9–
16cv733
1
nine) for declaratory judgment claim. (See Compl. ¶ 119.) The proposed consumer
2
classes are identical in that both include consumers who purchased Lipozene. The
3
only disparity is the class period. But comparing the proposed consumer classes’
4
class periods in the two actions, the proposed class in this action is effectively a subset
5
of the proposed class in Fernandez. And both classes in Fernandez and this action
6
would most likely be included in any judgment entered in Duran. In short, there is
7
substantial overlap between the proposed classes in Fernandez and this action.
8
There is also substantial overlap when comparing the defendants. Fernandez
9
was an action brought against Obesity Research Institute, LLC; Continuity Products,
10
LLC; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; Henny Den Uijl; and Bryan Corlett. (Defs.’ RJN Ex. 6.)
11
This action is also brought against all of the Fernandez defendants, excluding Wal-
12
Mart Stores, Inc., but adding Sandra Den Uijl, National Weight Loss Institute, Zodiac
13
Foundation, Conversion Systems, and Innotrac Corporation. Though the disparity
14
appears significant, it is not when considering Plaintiff’s allegation that “Defendants
15
ORI, Continuity, Zodiac, and National Weight Loss Institute are the alter egos of
16
Defendants Henny Den Uijl, Sandra Den Uijl, and/or Bryan Corlett.” (See Compl. ¶
17
62.) All of the defendants are effectively sued as a collective actor with the lead
18
representatives—ORI, Mr. Den Uijl, and Mr. Corlett—named in both actions.
19
Similarly, in Fernandez, the defendants, excluding Wal-Mart Stores, are also sued as
20
a collective actor where the Fernandez plaintiffs allege Mr. Den Uijl and Mr. Corlett
21
“established ORI and Continuity Products for an illegal purpose: to perpetrate fraud.”
22
(Fernandez Compl. ¶¶ 109-10, 111-19.) Excluding Wal-Mart Stores, the
23
aforementioned “collective actor” in this action is wholly present in Fernandez,
24
leading this Court to conclude that there is substantial overlap with the named
25
defendants as well.
Therefore, the identity-of-parties requirement of the first-to-file rule is
26
27
satisfied. See Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 625.
28
//
– 10 –
16cv733
1
C.
Similarity of Issues
2
“The issues in both cases also need not be identical, only substantially similar.”
3
Kohn Law, 787 F.3d at 1240-41. “To determine whether two suits involve
4
substantially similar issues, [the court] look[s] at whether there is ‘substantial
5
overlap’ between the two suits.” Id. (citing Harris Cnty., Tex. v. CarMax Auto
6
Superstores Inc., 177 F.3d 306, 319 (5th Cir. 1999)).
7
The dominant issue in Duran, Fernandez, and this action is whether ORI and
8
any related defendant entities are liable to consumers who purchased Lipozene based
9
on allegedly deceitful representations. In fact, the alleged deceitful statements are
10
nearly identical between Fernandez and this action (compare Fernandez Compl. ¶ 8,
11
with Compl. ¶¶ 4, 74-78), and six of the nine claims asserted in this action were also
12
asserted in Fernandez. The common claims asserted in both Fernandez and this
13
action are: (1) quasi-contract / unjust enrichment; (2) violations of the UCL; (3)
14
violations of the CLRA; (4) false advertising; (5) breach of express warranty; and (6)
15
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Of the three remaining claims,
16
Plaintiff’s claims for “intentional misrepresentation, fraud, and deceit” and negligent
17
misrepresentation are tort claims that sound in fraud, which also substantially overlap
18
with the common claims because ORI’s purported deceitful representations in its
19
advertising, marketing, and labels is precisely at the core of both cases. The same can
20
be said about the MMWA claim asserted in Fernandez, which specifically overlaps
21
with the warranty claims asserted in both actions.
22
The only outlier is the declaratory-judgment claim asserted in this action
23
arising from the 2005 Stipulated Final Judgment with the FTC, where Plaintiff and
24
the class in this action request “a declaration of their rights as Intended Beneficiaries
25
to the 2005 Stipulated Final Judgment contract that was entered into between
26
Defendants and the Federal Trade Commission,” and “a declaration of their right to
27
enforce Defendants’ compliance with the 2005 Order Granting a Permanent
28
Injunction[.]” (Compl. ¶¶ 137-38.) In addition to the $1.5 million monetary redress,
– 11 –
16cv733
1
the 2005 Stipulated Final Judgment “permanently restrained and enjoined” ORI,
2
Henny Den Uijl, Bryan Corlett, and others not named in this action from “making
3
any representation, in any manner, expressly or by implication” that any product
4
containing glucomannan, konjac, or konjac root, such as Lipozene: (1) “Causes rapid
5
or substantial weight loss without the need to reduce caloric intake or increase
6
physical activity”; (2) “Enables users to lose as much as 8 pounds or more per month
7
without the need to reduce caloric intake or increase exercise”; (3) “Works for all
8
users”; or (4) “Causes substantial weight loss through blocking the absorption of fat
9
or calories.” (Compl. Ex. 2.) Most, if not all, of these prohibitions describe
10
Defendants’ wrongful conduct alleged in both actions that also relate to Lipozene,
11
demonstrating overlap even between the declaratory-judgment claim in this action
12
and the factual issues to be litigated in Fernandez. Even discounting any overlap
13
resulting from the declaratory-judgment claim, however, the disparity of a single
14
claim in not enough to overcome the immense weight of the substantially overlapping
15
issues discussed above. See Kohn Law, 787 F.3d at 1240-41.
16
Accordingly, the similarity-of-issues requirement is also satisfied. See
17
Alltrade, 946 F.2d at 625. Because Fernandez is the first-filed federal action, and the
18
two actions have substantially similar parties and issues, the Court finds that the first-
19
to-file rule applies under the circumstances. See Kohn Law, 787 F.3d at 1240-41.
20
21
IV.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
22
Having concluded that the first-to-file rule applies, the Court must now
23
determine whether to transfer, stay, or dismiss this action. See Alltrade, 946 F.2d at
24
623. Because the Fernandez Court has already determined that venue is proper and
25
stayed the case pending the resolution of Duran, this Court finds that transferring this
26
action to the Eastern District of California for consolidation with Fernandez is
27
appropriate in order to avoid inconsistent judgments and promote efficiency. See
28
Church of Scientology, 611 F.2d at 749.
– 12 –
16cv733
1
2
3
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to transfer
this action to the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 38.)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
DATED: January 31, 2017
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
– 13 –
16cv733
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?