WINGATE INNS INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. SWINDALL
Filing
21
OPINION. Signed by Judge Claire C. Cecchi on 10/22/2012. (nr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
WINGATE INNS INTERNATIONAL,:
INC.,
:
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No, 12-248 (CCC)
V.
OPINION
MARGARET SWINDALL,
Defendant.
CECCHI, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Wingate Inns International, Inc.’s
(“Plaintiff’) motion to dismiss the first, second, fifth, sixth, and seventh counterclaims asserted
by Defendant Margaret Swindall (“Defendant”).
Submissions made in support of and in
opposition to the instant motion have been carefully considered by the Court.’
The Court
decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Based on the reasons that follow, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss is granted without
prejudice.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a corporation that runs a hotel franchise system.
On October 20, 1999,
Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Franchise Agreement (“Agreement”) for the operation of a
116-room guest lodging facility (“facility”) located at 2516 West Lakeshore Drive, Tallahassee,
Florida. (Complaint
¶6
and Ex. A.) According to the Agreement, Defendant was required to
operate the facility as a Wingate hotel for twenty years. (Compi. Ex. A
§
5.) During that time,
Brenner v.
The Court considers any arguments not presented by the parties to be waived.
Local 514, United Bhd. Of Carpenters & Joiners, 927 F.2d 1283, 1298 (3d Cir. 1991) (“It is well
established that failure to raise an issue in the district court constitutes a waiver of the
argument.”).
Defendant was to make various payments to Plaintiff for royalties, service assessments, taxes,
interest, reservation system user fees, annual conference fees and other fees. (Compi. Ex, A
7
& Schedule C.) Plaintiff alleges that it subsequently learned that Defendant had transferred
control of the facility, and as a result, Plaintiff terminated the Agreement effective November 4,
2
2010. Cornpi,(15,)
On January 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed this action seeking an accounting of the revenues
earned at the facility during the time it was operated as a Wingate facility and to recover any
outstanding fees. (P1. Br. 1.) Defendant answered and asserted the following counterclaims: (1)
fraud based on Plaintiff’s promises that the hotel would be profitable; (2) violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing; (5) lost income; (6) violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act; and (7)
violation of the Florida Franchise and Distributorship Law, (Def. Answer.) Plaintiff thereafter
filed this motion to dismiss Defendant’s first, second, fifth, sixth, and seventh counterclaims.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
For a complaint to survive dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), it “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face,” Ashcroft v, IqbaL 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint, the Court
must accept all we11pleaded factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the non-moving party.
231 (3d Cir. 2008).
Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F,3d 224,
“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Furthermore, “[a] pleading that offers ‘labels and
2
In her Answer, Defendant states that she lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief as to whether she transferred the facility. (Def. Answer ¶ 15.)
2
conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Nor does
a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion [si’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.”
Igbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal citations omitted).
The burden of proof for showing that no claim has been stated is on the moving party.
Hedges v, U.S., 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Kehr Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc.,
926 F,2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir. 1991)). During a court’s threshold review, “[tjhe issue is not
whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to
support the claims.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 583 (quotations omitted).
III.
DISCUSSION
A. First Counterclaim: Fraud
Defendant asserts a counterclaim for fraudulent inducement, alleging that prior to her
purchase of the franchise, Plaintiff’s sales person assured her that the facility would be “an
extremely profitable business” and that if she built a 116 room facility, she would receive “extra
marketing dollars.” (Def. Counterclaims
¶9[ 37-39.) Defendant claims that contrary to these
promises, Plaintiff never provided marketing or other support after she purchased the franchise.
(Ih ¶91 40-42.) Defendant further alleges that she requested “support as to all aspects of the
operation of the franchise
.
.
.
to enable the franchise to be profitable,” but that she did not
receive such assistance from Plaintiff. (Def. Answer ¶9[ 3-6;i0-14.)
In order to set forth a claim for fraudulent inducement, a claimant must establish: (1) a
material representation of a presently existing or past fact; (2) knowledge or belief of its falsity;
(3) an intent that the other party rely on it; (4) reasonable reliance by the other party; and (5)
resulting damage to the other party. Travelodge Hotels, Inc. v. Honeysuckle Enters. Inc., No.
02-2889, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27791, at *22 (D.N.J. Nov. 7, 2005).
3
Plaintiff argues that
Defendant cannot establish the fourth factor, reasonable reliance on a false representation, in
light of the express tenns of the provisions contained in the Agreement. (P1. Br. 4-6.)
For example, Section 17.7.2 of the agreement states that “[njeither we nor any person
acting on our behalf has made any oral or written representation or promise to you on which you
are relying to enter into this Agreement that is not written in this Agreement. You release any
claim against us or our agents based on any oral or written representation or promise not stated in
this Agreement.” (Compi. Ex. A
§ 17.7.2.) Section 17.7.3 states that the Agreement is the entire
agreement between the parties and that there are no other oral or written representations. (Comp.
Ex. A
§ 17.7.3.) Similarly, Section 17.7.4 states that “no salesperson has made any promise or
provided any information to you about projected sales, revenues, income, profits or expenses
from the Facility,” beyond what is stated in Section 19 of the Uniform Franchise Offering
Circular or the Agreement. (Compl. Ex. A
§ 17.7.4.) Finally, Section 14.3 states that “[t]here
are no express or implied covenants or warranties, oral or written, between [Plaintiff] and
[Defendant] except as expressly stated in this Agreement.” (Compl. Ex. A
§ 14.3.)
The Court finds that based on these integration clauses, Defendant’s reliance on
Plaintiffs alleged prior representations is not reasonable.
Jackson Hewitt Inc. v. Childress,
No. 06-0909, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24460, at *32 (D.N.J. Mar. 21, 2008). In Jackson, this
Court rejected the defendant’s argument that he was fraudulently induced into signing the
franchise agreement at issue, The Court held that Defendant’s reliance on prior representations
was unreasonable because the franchise agreement contained integration clauses that superseded
all earlier representations, understandings, and oral and written agreements. jçj at *3233. Thus,
the Court concluded that “[un light of the integration clause and disclaimers contained in the
Franchise Agreements, Defendant’s alleged reliance on any prior representations not contained
4
3
in the Franchise Agreements was unreasonable as a matter of law,”
at 32;
Ramada
Franchise Sys. v. Eagle Hospitality Grp., No. 03-cv-3585, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45102, at *27
(D.N.J. June 24, 2005) (“The plain language of the integration clause states that the License
Agreement supersedes all previous oral and written representations.”).
Also on point is the Court’s decision in Chen v. HD Dimension, Corp., No. 10-cv-863,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120599 (D.N.J. Nov. 15, 2010). There, the plaintiff alleged that the
defendant’s misrepresentations induced him into signing an employment agreement.
at *14.
The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant was aware that the representations were false at
the time they were made and intended for the plaintiff to rely on them. I,çj, at * 14-15. The Court
explained that the employment agreement’s “entire understanding” clause required dismissal of
the plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement claim. Id. at 19-24. The “entire understanding” clause
stated that the defendant made no “representation with respect to the subject matter of [thel
Agreement or any representations including the execution and delivery [tihereof, except such
representations as are specifically set forth [tiherein.” I.ci.. at *20. Therefore, the Court held that
the express terms of the plaintiff’s employment agreement barred him from asserting a cause of
action for fraud stemming from any alleged representations that were not specifically set forth in
the agreement.
at *24.
Defendant’s citation to Ocean Cape Hotel Corp. v. Masefield Corp., 63 N.J. Super. 369
(N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1960) is unavailing. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that it was
induced by the fraudulent oral representations of the defendant to lease from the latter a hotel.
Defendant argues that Jackson is not applicable to this case because the franchise circular in
Jackson “specifically stated no earnings claims were being provided.” (Def. Opp. 11.)
However, Defendant provides no explanation as to how or why this factual distinction affects the
holding in Jackson that “misrepresentations are not actionable if an integration clause is
contained in the franchise agreement governing the parties’ relationship.” Jackson, 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 24460, at *33,
at 375. The alleged representations consisted of statements that certain structural defects in
the leased premises would be “corrected.
.
.by Memorial Day.”
However, the repairs were
not completed until the first week in August. Id. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division rejected the defendant’s argument that an integration clause disaffirming any
representations regarding the physical condition of the property barred the plaintiff’s claims. In
doing so, the Court specifically explained that the alleged misrepresentations did not relate to
“the physical condition of the property or its operation,” as covered by the integration clause, but
to the “repair of certain structural defects in the leased premises.” J.ç at 379.
In this case,
however, the integration clauses clearly cover the alleged representations regarding profits and
expectations. Regardless, Ocean does not provide support for Defendant’s argument because the
court ultimately held that the plaintiff’s pleadings and affidavits did not support a finding of
fraudulent intent. Id. at 383-84.
In sum, Defendant has not sufficiently alleged fraud in the inducement, and as such, her
first counterclaim is dismissed.
B. Second Counterclaim: Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
Defendant’s second counterclaim alleges that Plaintiff violated the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act (“NJCFA”). (Def. Answer 13.) The NJCFA provides in relevant part:
The act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial
practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the
knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent
that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection
with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the
subsequent performance of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person
has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an
unlawful practice.
N.J. Stat. Ann.
§ 56:8-2 (2012). The NJCFA is intended to protect consumers who purchase
“goods or services generally sold to the public at large.” Marascio v. Campanella, 689 A.2d 852,
6
856-57 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1997); see also Arc Networks, Inc. v. Gold Phone Card Co..
Inc., 756 A.2d 636, 637-38 (N.J. Super. CL App. Div. 1997).
The NJCFA’s focus is thus
“pointed to products and services sold to consumers in the popular sense.”
at 638.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant cannot sustain this counterclaim because Defendant is not
a “consumer” and the sale of a franchise is not “merchandise.” In other words, Plaintiff contends
that a franchise is not consumer merchandise that is typically offered for sale to the general
public. (P1. Br. 7-10.) The Court agrees.
In J&R Ice Cream Corp. v. CA Smoothie Licensing Corp., 31 F.3d 1259 (3d Cir. 1994),
the Third Circuit specifically addressed the question of whether the NJCFA applies to franchises.
The Court explained that:
even where franchises or distributorships are available to the public at large in the
same sense as are trucks, boats or computer peripherals, they are not covered by
the Consumer Fraud Act because they are businesses, not consumer goods or
services. They never are purchased for consumption. Instead, they are purchased
for the present value of the cash flows they are expected to produce in the future
and, like the technology and services acquired in BOC Group, bear no
resemblance to the commodities and services listed in the statutory definition of
“merchandise” or the rules promulgated by the Division of Consumer Affairs.
Ici. at
1274 (emphasis added).
Defendant cites to Kavky v. Herbalife Int’l of Am., 820 A.2d 677 (N.J. Super. Ct. App.
Div. 2003), a case in which the Appellate Division carved out a narrow exception to the rule
delineated in J&R Ice Cream. However, the situation in Kavky is factually distinguishable from
the present case,
Kavky, 820 A.2d at 678-79. There, the franchisor used general advertising
over the Internet to solicit distributors for a variety of products it sold in the United States. j4. at
679. Specifically, the franchisor’s offer was “to make anyone a distributor in return for $85 and
to provide ‘Pre-Paid Retail Internet Customers’ at $8.50 per customer.” j4 In a situation that
involved such “mass-marketing to the public,” the purchaser’s role in Kavicy was more akin to
7
that of a traditional consumer than a franchisee. Id. at 681. As such, the application of the
NJCFA in Kavky is inapposite to the present case, $,,ç Wingate Inns, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
115745 at *24..26 (distinguishing Kavky and granting the hotel franchisor’s motion to dismiss
the franchisee’s NJCFA counterclaim); In re Schering-Plough Corp. IntronlTemodar Consumer
Class Action, No. 06-cv-5774, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58900, at *112, fit 24 (D.N.J. July 10,
2009) (noting the conflicting decision in Kavky, but explaining that this Court is “bound by, the
Third Circuit’s prediction of New Jersey law in [J&R Ice Creamj”); Trans USA Prods. v.
Howard Berger Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61069, at *18.49, fn 5 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2008) (“In
J&R Ice Cream Corp., the Third Circuit held that the NJCFA does not apply to distribution or
franchise transactions.
.
.
Although New Jersey courts have expressed disagreement with this
result, the Court finds the Third Circuit’s expression of the policy underlying the NJCFA
accurate.”). Application of the principles set forth in J&R Ice Cream thus requires dismissal of
Defendant’s NJCFA counterclaim.
C. Fifth Counterclaim: Lost Income
Defendant’s fifth counterclaim alleges that she had the opportunity to obtain employment
in excess of $100,000.00 per year, was deprived of at least twenty-five years of employment,
turned down the opportunity to purchase a competing franchise, and would have earned income
in excess of $500,000.00. (Def. Answer ¶(j[ 88-95.) The Court finds that these arguments are
more appropriately addressed at the damages phase of this litigation. $çç Red Roof Franchising,
LLC v. AA Hospitality Northshore, LLC, No, 10-cv-4120, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90564, at
*301 fn. 17 (D.N.J. June 28, 2012) (“RRF also seeks to recover lost profits. To recover lost
profits, a party must prove the amount of damages sustained.”) (emphasis added); McLane
Foodservice, Inc. v. Ready Pac Produce, Inc., No. 10-cv-5076, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76343, at
8
*4 (D,N.J. June 1, 2012) (“Plaintiff is seeking damages allegedly resulting from the outbreak,
including, but not limited to, litigation costs, destruction of product, lost business and lost
profits.”) (emphasis added).
Therefore, Defendant’s fifth counterclaim is dismissed without
prejudice and without otherwise affecting her right to seek appropriate remedies for any of her
remaining claims.
D. Sixth Counterclaim: Violation of Georgia Fair Business Practices Act
Defendant’s sixth counterclaim alleges that Plaintiff violated the Georgia Fair Business
Practices Act (“GFBPA”) by engaging in deceptive practices. The GFBPA prohibits “[ujnfair or
deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of consumer transactions and consumer acts or
practices in trade or commerce.” Ga. Code Ann.
§
10-1-393(a) (2012). According to the statute,
“[clonsumer acts or practices’ means acts or practices intended to encourage consumer
transactions.” Id. at § 10-1-392(a)(7). “Consumer transactions,” in turn, refers to “the sale,
purchase, lease, or rental of goods, services, or property, real or personal, primarily for personal,
family, or household purposes.”
at § 10-1-392(a)(10).
4
Further, the Georgia Court of Appeals has held that “[olne may bring a private suit under
the FBPA only if he is individually injured by the breach of a duty owed to the consuming public
in general.” Pryor v. CCEC, Inc., 571 S.E.2d 454, 455 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (internal quotations
and citations omitted).
Thus, the GFBPA “does not encompass suits based upon allegedly
deceptive or unfair acts or practices which occur in an essentially private transaction, Unless it
can be said that the defendant’s actions had or has potential harm for the consumer public the act
or practice cannot be said to have ‘impact’ on the consumer marketplace and any act or practice
The statute broadly defines trade and commerce as “advertising, distribution, sale, lease, or
offering for distribution, sale, or lease of any goods, services, or any property, tangible or
intangible, real, personal, or mixed, or any other article, commodity, or thing of value wherever
situate and shall include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this
state.” Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-392(a)(28).
9
which is outside that context, no matter how unfair or deceptive, is not directly regulated by the
FBPA.”
(emphasis added) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Therefore, in considering whether an allegedly deceptive practice is within the scope of
the GFBPA, Georgia courts have concluded that “two factors are determinative: (a) the medium
through which the act or practice is introduced into the stream of commerce; and (b) the market
on which the act or practice is reasonably intended to impact.” Georgia v. Meredith Chevrolet,
Inc., 244 S.E.2d 15, 18 (Ga. Ct. App. 1978), aff’d, 249 S.E.2d 87 (Ga. 1978). If consideration of
both factors reveals that the alleged act was directed at consumers, the court then considers “the
fairness or deceptiveness of the act or practice.”
Plaintiff argues that the sale of a franchise under the facts of this case is not covered by
the GFBPA.
The Court agrees, finding a case from a district court in this Circuit to be
instructive on the matter. In Vino 100, LLC v. Smoke on the Water, LLC, No. 09-cv-4983, 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46465 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2012), the plaintiffs-franchisors brought suit against
the defendants-franchisees for, inter alia, violation of the Lanham Act.
The franchisees
counterclaimed that the franchisors violated the GFBPA by making certain false and misleading
statements in the negotiations that led to the purchase of the franchise. j at *2. In rejecting the
franchisee’s GFBPA claim, the Court held that the “allegedly deceptive acts occurred in the
context of a private transaction.” j4, at *53,
Similarly, here, the alleged misrepresentations
appear to have occurred in conversations between Plaintiff and Defendant. Defendant proffers
no argument or evidence that the offending statements were otherwise disseminated to the
public. Moreover, Defendant has not argued that the purchase of the franchise business was “an
acquisition made ‘primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.”
(quotations omitted).
Id. at *54
Indeed, the submissions of the parties clearly indicate that Defendant
10
purchased and operated the Wingate franchise hotel as a business.
As such, the GFBPA is
inapplicable and Defendant’s counterclaim should be dismissed.
In re Ford Motor Co. E
350 Van Prods, Liab. Litig., No. 03-cv-4558, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68241, at *109410 (D.N.J.
July 9, 2010) (granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s
GFBPA claim because there was no evidence that the vans at issue were purchased for personal,
family or household use).
E. Seventh Counterclaim: Violation of Florida Franchise and Distributorship Law
Defendant’s seventh counterclaim alleges a violation of the Florida Franchise and
Distributorship Law (“FFDL”). Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s claim is barred by the parties’
agreement that New Jersey law would govern all disputes arising from the franchise agreement.
(Pls.’ Br. 16.)
“In evaluating whether a contractual choice-of-law clause is enforceable, federal courts
sitting in diversity apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum state.” Homa v. Am. Express Co.,
558 F.3d 225, 227 (3d Cir. 2009); see
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487,
496 (1941) (explaining that conflict of law rules applied in federal court must conform with
those prevailing in the state court). The New Jersey Supreme Court has cited to the Restatement
(Second) Conflict of Laws
§
187 (1969) for guidance in construing the choice-of-law
jurisprudence. Instructional Sys., Inc. v. Computer Curriculum Corp., 614 A.2d 124, 133 (N.J.
1992). The Restatement in turn provides that the law of the state chosen by the parties will
apply, unless either: “(a) the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties or the
transaction and there is no other reasonable basis for the parties’ choice, or (b) application of the
law of the chosen state would be contrary to a fundamental policy of a state which has a
materially greater interest than the chosen state in the determination of the particular issue and
11
which
* * *
would be the state of the applicable law in the absence of an effective choice of law
by the parties.”
I4. (asterisks in original).
Here, it is clear that New Jersey has significant contacts with the parties and the
transaction, as Plaintiff’s principle place of business is in Parsippany, New Jersey and the parties
agreed that any action between them shall be heard in Morris County, New Jersey. (Compi.
¶ 4.)
In addition, the application of the choice-of-law provision is not contrary to Florida public policy
because the Florida statute contains no anti-waiver provision. Fla. Stat.
§
817.416 (2012). As
such, parties “operating under Florida law are free to contract away the protections of the
statute.” Cottman Transmission Sys.. LLC v. Kershner, 536 F. Supp. 2d 543, 550 (E.D. Pa.
2008); GE v. Latin Am. Imports, S.A., 214 F. Supp. 2d 758, 769 (W.D. Ky. 2002) (dismissing a
FFDA counterclaim because the parties’ selection of New York law to govern the relevant
contract precluded the claim).
Moreover, district courts in Florida that have considered the issue have allowed choiceof-law agreements to bar the application of the Florida Franchise Act. See çg, Loehr v. Hot ‘N
Now, Inc., No. 95-cv-6253, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23649, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 11, 1998)
(rejecting a Florida Franchise Act claim based on the parties’ contractual agreement that
Michigan law would apply); Hardee’s Food Sys., Inc. v. Bennett, No. 89-cv-8069, 1994 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 21596, at *15.16 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 1994) (rejecting a Florida Franchise Act claim
based on the parties’ contractual agreement that North Carolina law would apply). By signing a
franchise agreement containing a New Jersey choice-of-law clause, Defendant agreed to receive
the amount of protection afforded by New Jersey law, and consequently waived the protections
offered by Florida law. See Cottman, 536 F. Supp. 2d at 550 (“Florida’s policy is to provide a
12
franchisee with as much protection as he or she contracts to receive.”) As such, Defendant’s
counterclaim under the FFDA should be dismissed.
5
F. Statute of Limitations
Plaintiff further argues that Defendant’s fraud, NJCFA, GFBPA and FFDA claims should
be dismissed because she did not assert the claims within the applicable limitations periods.
Because the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss based on the reasons set forth above, the
Court need not decide the statute of limitations issues.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s first,
second, fifth, sixth and seventh counterclaims is granted without prejudice. To the extent the
deficiencies in Defendant’s counterclaims can be cured by way of amendment, Defendant is
granted fourteen (14) days to file an Amended Answer solely for purposes of amending such
counterclaims. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
DATED: October 22, 2012
CLAIRE C. CECCHI, U.S.D.J.
Because the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant’s seventh counterclaim on
this ground, the Court need not consider Plaintiff’s additional arguments.
13
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?