FOSTER OWNERS CO. LLC et al v. FARRELL
OPINION fld. Signed by Judge Faith S. Hochberg on 2/23/15. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
FOSTER OWNERS CO. LLC, et al.,
Civil Action No. 14-5120 (FSH)
JEFFREY J. FARRELL,
This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant Jeffrey J. Farrell
(“Defendant” or “Farrell”) to dismiss the action for Plaintiffs’ failure to join Hudson View
Gardens, LLC (“HVG”) as a party pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) and 19.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78, the Court decided this motion without oral argument.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s motion is denied.
A. Relevant Facts
This case arises out of a dispute among the members of a New Jersey limited liability
company. 1 HVG was formed on or about August 2, 2005 to, among other things, “acquire and
manage” residential apartment buildings. At its inception, HVG consisted of Rodney Durso,
Gary Durso, Marla G. Durso (collectively, the “Dursos”), who are all New York residents, and
For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court takes the facts recited herein from
Plaintiff’s Complaint. See Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974); Allegheny Gen. Hosp.
v. Philip Morris, Inc., 228 F.3d 429, 434-35 (3d Cir. 2000).
Defendant Farrell, a New Jersey resident. The Dursos are also the sole members of Foster
Owners Co. LLC (“Foster”), a New York limited liability company with its principal place of
business in New York.
Pursuant to Section 5.3 of HVG’s Operating Agreement, HVG’s members elected Farrell
to serve as the “Managing Member” in charge of the “day-to-day responsibilities.” 2 Under
Section 3.1 of the Operating Agreement, the Dursos received 447,500 Class A Units of HVG and
were entitled to a 55.5% voting interest, and Farrell received 447,500 Class B Units of HVG and
was entitled to a 44.44% voting interest. In addition, under Section 3.2 of the Operating
Agreement, Farrell was obligated to make a capital contribution of $447,500. Because Farrell did
not have sufficient funds to pay $418,000 of the required capital, he borrowed the remaining
amount from Foster. Accordingly, on or about October 3, 2005, Farrell executed a Term Note
(the “Note”) for $418,000.
Under the Note, Farrell agreed to repay Foster the principal and interest of seven and onequarter percent per annum, on a monthly basis, until the due date of the final payment on October
3, 2010. Further, in order to secure Farrell’s performance under the Note, on October 3, 2005,
Farrell and Foster executed a Pledge Agreement where, among other things, Farrell pledged to
Neither party submitted a copy of HVG’s Operating Agreement. Because HVG is a
New Jersey limited liability company, it is governed by the Revised Uniform Limited Liability
Company Act. See N.J.S.A. 42:2C-1. Under N.J.S.A. 42:24-11, the operating agreement governs
the “relations among the members . . . [of] the limited liability company,” including the “rights
and duties . . . of a person in the capacity of manager.” Further, a limited liability company is
“member-managed” unless the operating agreement explicitly provides that the company is
“manager-managed.” N.J.S.A. 42:2C-37. In this case, the Operating Agreement provides that
HVG is “manager-managed,” N.J.S.A. 42:2C-37, because its members, the Dursos and Farrell,
appointed Farrell to manage HVG. Therefore, under N.J.S.A. 42:2C-37, Farrell has exclusive
decision-making power over HVG’s activities.
Foster all of his interest in his Class B Units of HVG (the “Collateral Agreement”). 3
1. State Court Action
On October 23, 2014, Farrell filed a Complaint against the Dursos and HVG in Bergen
County Superior Court, Chancery Division (the “State Court Action”) alleging, among other
things, breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. 4
B. Summary of Arguments
On August 14, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint, charging Farrell with, among other
things, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and fraud. In lieu of an answer, Defendant
now moves to dismiss the Complaint for failure to join HVG as a party to this action. 5 Farrell
maintains that HVG is a necessary party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 because all of
the parties formed HVG, and because the Operating Agreement governs the parties’ relationship.
Farrell also argues that Plaintiff’s allegations against Farrell for fraud directly affect HVG, which
makes HVG a necessary party.
The Court notes that there appears to be two Collateral Agreements. In addition to the
agreement made on October 3, 2005 between Farrell and Foster, the Complaint’s Eleventh Count
states that in approximately November 2013, Rodney Durso (“Rodney”) and Farrell entered into
another Collateral Agreement, where Rodney loaned Farrell $50,000 and Farrell pledged his
Class B Units of HVG as security.
Farrell attaches a copy of his State Court Action Complaint to his Reply Brief in
response to Plaintiffs’ statement in their opposition brief that they have not yet received a copy of
the state court Complaint nor have been served. In his Complaint, Farrell also includes Samco
Realty, L.L.C., a New Jersey entity that manages HVG, as a defendant.
In his motion, Farrell presents this case as a “derivative shareholder creature” because it
is an “action by majority shareholders of a company . . . against a minority shareholder.”
However, Farrell fails to cite any legal authority that supports this proposition. Further, the Court
finds that characterizing the claims as derivative or non-derivative is irrelevant to determining
whether HVG is indispensable in this case. See R & R Capital, LLC v. Merritt, No. 07-2869,
2007 WL 3102961, at *10 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2007) (noting that although determining whether
claims are derivative is relevant in suits against corporations, the same reasoning does not apply
to other legal entities, like partnerships).
Moreover, Farrell contends that HVG is not a dispensable party because any judgment in
this action would not prevent HVG from separately suing Farrell. See id. at 6. Finally, because
joining HVG defeats complete diversity, Farrell argues that the Court should dismiss the
Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7). 6 See id. at 1, 7.
In opposition, Plaintiffs claim that HVG is not a necessary party to the action. Although
Plaintiffs state that they “do not concede that [HVG] is a necessary party” in this case, Plaintiffs
fail to provide any legal basis for their argument. Instead, Plaintiffs focus on Fed. R. Civ. P.
19(b) and the issue of indispensability. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that the Court should deny
Farrell’s motion because HVG is not an indispensable party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b), as all
HVG’s members are parties, and the Court can include proper provisions in any judgment to
prevent HVG or Farrell from being prejudiced. Plaintiffs primarily rely on HB Gen. Corp. v.
Manchester Partners, L.P., a case based on diversity and arising out of a dispute among members
of a small limited partnership. 95 F.3d 1185 (3d Cir. 1996). Plaintiffs argue that the Third
Circuit’s reasoning in HB for denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(7) applies to this action, particularly on the issue of indispensability. Specifically,
Plaintiffs argue that the Third Circuit was correct in concluding that: (1) protective provisions in
the judgment can avoid prejudicing the defendant; and (2) excluding the partnership would not
prejudice the partnerships’ interests.
In its reply, Farrell distinguishes HB from this case by arguing that the entity at issue in
HB was a Delaware partnership, whereas here, HVG is a New Jersey limited liability company.
Farrell’s argument that dismissal for lack of diversity is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(7)
seems to conflate the joinder principles of Rules 12(b)(7) and 19 with the jurisdictional basis for
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1).
Farrell argues that the New Jersey’s Limited Liability Company Act governs HVG, and that the
Act considers HVG a “separate legal entity.” 7 Moreover, Farrell contends that the parties will not
be prejudiced if this action is dismissed because the parties can litigate the dispute in the pending
State Court Action.
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) and 19, a defendant may move to dismiss
a complaint for plaintiff’s failure to join a party. In reviewing a motion to dismiss under Rules
12(b)(7) and 19, the court must accept all allegations in the complaint as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. See Jurimex Kommerz Transit G.M.B.H.
v. Case Corp., 65 Fed. Appx. 803, 805 (3d Cir. 2000). It is the movant’s burden to prove that a
non-party is indispensable to the adjudication of the action. See Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v.
Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., No. 92-5255, 1993 WL 95494, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31,
Rule 19 governs when a party’s joinder is compulsory. See Janney Montgomery Scott,
Inc. v. Shepard Niles, Inc., 11 F.3d 399, 404 (3d Cir. 1993). Courts considering a Rule 19 motion
must conduct a two-step inquiry. See Gen. Refractories Co. v. First State Ins. Co., 500 F.3d 306
(3d Cir. 2007); Janney, 11 F.3d at 404. First, the court must determine whether the absent party is
“necessary” to the action. See Gen. Refractories, 500 F.3d at 312. Rule 19(a) provides, in
(1) A person . . . must be joined as a party if (A) in that person’s absence, the court
cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or (B) that person claims an
interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the
action in the person’s absence may: (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the
Farrell cites to a statute that was repealed by the Revised Uniform Limited Liability
Company Act § 95 (Sept. 19, 2012). However, the law remains the same under N.J.S.A. 42:2C4a (“A limited liability company is an entity distinct from its members.”).
person’s ability to protect the interest; or (ii) leave an existing party subject to a
substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations
because of the interest.
Id. If the court determines that the party is “necessary,” then the party must be joined. See Gen.
Refractories, 500 F.3d at 312. If a party does not satisfy the requirements of 19(a), the Court need
not inquire further. See Temple v. Synthes Corp. Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 8 (1990); Janney, 11 F.3d at
413. If the party is necessary, but may not feasibly be joined under Rule 19(a), the court must
turn to the second step in the inquiry. See Gen. Refractories, 500 F.3d at 319.
Where the court determines that a party must be joined under Rule 19(a), but doing so
would be procedurally infeasible, such as, where joining the party destroys complete diversity and
thus, the court’s jurisdiction, then the court analyzes Rule 19(b) to determine if “in equity and
good conscience,” the necessary party is indispensable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b); see also Janney, 11
F.3d at 405. In other words, where joinder is procedurally infeasible, the court must evaluate
whether “the action should proceed among the existing parties or should be dismissed.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 19(b); see also Guthrie Clinic, Ltd. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill., 104 Fed. Appx. 218,
221 n.4 (3d Cir. 2004).
To determine whether a necessary party is “indispensable,” a court looks at four factors,
including whether: (1) a judgment rendered in the non-party’s absence might prejudice the nonparty or the existing parties; (2) protective provisions in the judgment, the shaping of final relief,
or other measures, can diminish the existing prejudice; (3) a judgment rendered in the non-party’s
absence will be adequate; and (4) the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action is
dismissed for nonjoinder. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). If the party is indispensable, the action
ultimately cannot go forward. See Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. Hotel
Rittenhouse Assocs., 844 F.2d 1050, 1053-54 (3d Cir. 1988).
A. Rule 19(a)
The court initially looks to Rule 19(a) to determine the feasibility of joining HVG in this
dispute. Courts treat clauses (A) and (B) of Rule 19(a)(1) disjunctively: if a party satisfies either
subsection, the party is deemed “necessary.” See Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co. v. Minuteman Spill
Response, Inc., 999 F. Supp. 2d 805, 814 (W.D. Pa. 2013) (citing Gen. Refractories, 500 F.3d at
313). For example, even if a court decides that complete relief can be granted, it must still
analyze both parts of Rule 19(a)(1) to determine whether joining a non-party is necessary. See id.
Here, the Court will first examine whether joining HVG is necessary under Rule
1. Rule 19(a)(1)(A)
Rule 19(a)(1)(A) requires that the court first examine whether complete relief may be
accorded “among existing parties” without joining any absent party. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
19(a)(1)(A). In considering the completeness of the relief, the court need not consider the “effect
a decision may have on absent parties.” Gen. Refractories, 500 F.3d at 313 (citing Angst v. Royal
Maccabees Life Ins. Co., 77 F.3d 701, 705 (3d Cir. 1996)). For example, in American Home
Mortg. Corp. v. First American Title Ins. Co., the plaintiff’s ability to fully recover from the
defendant was made clear in the language of the parties’ title insurance policies, which required
the defendant to insure plaintiffs for any loss or damage. No. 07-01257 (JLL), 2007 WL
3349320, at *4 (D.N.J. Nov. 9, 2007). In that case, although the parties did not provide the court
with a copy of the policies, the court still concluded that the non-party entity was not necessary
under general principles of joint and several liability. See id. at *5-6.
Here, Plaintiffs claim that the court may enter complete relief among the parties without
HVG’s involvement. However, Plaintiffs provide no further legal support for that argument. On
the other hand, Farrell argues that the case may not be settled or fully adjudicated without joining
HVG because all parties created HVG, and because HVG’s Operating Agreement governs the
parties’ relationship. But Farrell fails to explain why HVG must be a party for the Court to
examine the Operating Agreement. Additionally, similar to American Home, neither party in this
case provides the Court with a copy of the Operating Agreement. Nevertheless, as Farrell
concedes, all members of HVG are existing parties in this case. Plaintiffs seek recovery of
various claims, including Farrell’s alleged breach of the Note, pursuant to which Farrell is
required to repay Foster for the loan, and Farrell’s breach of the Collateral Agreements with
Foster and Robert Durso. Thus, under the Note and the Collateral Agreements, Farrell must repay
funds to the existing parties. The Court therefore finds that complete relief may be accorded
among the present parties, and that HVG is not a necessary party under subsection (a)(1)(A). See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A).
2. Rule 19(a)(1)(B)
Even though the parties may receive complete relief, the Court must still analyze HVG
under Rule 19(a)(1)(B). Unlike the analysis under subsection (a)(1)(A), the Court now considers
the effect that resolving this case may have on any non-parties. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B).
Under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i), the court must determine whether the non-party will be
impaired or impeded from protecting their interests in the subject matter of the litigation. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i). The court may generally consider whether an absent party has
claimed any interest. See Wallkill 5 Assocs. II v. Tectonic Eng’g, P.C., No. 95-5984, 1997 WL
452252, at *8 (D.N.J. July 25, 1997) (recognizing that “[i]ndeed, [non-party] Poppe has not even
claimed an interest in the subject of the action” in its Rule 19(a)(1)(B) analysis). For example, in
HB, the Third Circuit concluded that the non-party partnership “clearly has an interest in th[e]
case” because the defendant’s obligation to provide capital, the alleged breach that is the basis of
the suit, “ran to the Partnership.” 95 F.3d at 1190. The HB court thus held that joinder of the
partnership was required under Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i), if feasible.
This case, however, is distinguishable from HB because HVG, unlike the partnership in
HB, is not a stakeholder in the litigation between Farrell and Foster. Farrell satisfied his
obligation to HVG to provide a capital contribution of $447,500 by borrowing $418,000 from
Foster. Accordingly, Farrell executed the Note to Foster in the principal amount of $418,000,
pledging as security Farrell’s interest in his Class B Units of HVG. Because Farrell allegedly did
not pay the amount due under the Note, Farrell’s breach, which forms part of the basis of this
action, runs to Foster rather than to HVG. See HB, 95 F.3d at 1190. Furthermore, in HB, the
defendant maintained the right to redeem its partnership interest, and if the partnership failed to
pay the redemption price, then the defendant could seek to compel a sale of land owned by the
partnership. See id. at 1189. Here, Farrell’s breach of the Note triggered transferring Farrell’s
interest in his Class B Units of HVG to Foster under the Collateral Agreement. Thus, Foster
owns any remedy Farrell may seek. Therefore, this Court finds that the joinder of HVG is not
required under subsection (a)(1)(B)(i).
Next, Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii) requires the Court to examine whether proceeding without
joining the absent parties will leave the parties “subject to substantial risk of incurring double,
multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(ii). In HB, for
example, the Third Circuit noted that joinder of the absent Partnership was necessary because the
partnership could bring identical claims against the defendant, and thus expose the defendant to
additional risks. 95 F.3d at 1190. Here, while HVG possibly could bring some identical claims
against Farrell, HVG cannot charge Farrell with a majority of Plaintiffs’ allegations, including
breach of contract, breach of the Collateral Agreements, fraud, and conversion. Instead, most of
Plaintiffs’ claims are unique to the named parties. Thus, because there is no “substantial” risk of
exposing Farrell to “inconsistent obligations,” the joinder of HVG is unnecessary. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(ii); see also Janney, 11 F.3d at 411 (“[T]he possibility of a subsequent
adjudication that may result in a judgment that is inconsistent as a matter of logic [does not]
trigger the application of Rule 19.”) (quotations omitted).
Because HVG does not satisfy the requirements of 19(a), the Court need not inquire
further. See Temple v. Synthes Corp. Ltd., 498 U.S. 5, 8 (1990); Janney, 11 F.3d at 413.
Nevertheless, even if HVG is a necessary party under 19(a), the joinder of HVG is required only
if it is feasible.
Importantly, joinder is not feasible in this case. For diversity jurisdiction purposes, the
citizenship of a limited liability company is determined by the citizenship of its members. See
Zambelli Fireworks Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Wood, 592 F.3d 412, 420 (3d Cir. 2010). Thus, although
there is complete diversity without joinder of HVG because the suit is brought by New York
citizens against a New Jersey citizen, that diversity vanishes if HVG, a citizen of New York and
New Jersey, is joined. See Zambelli, 592 F.3d at 420. Thus, the Court must next determine
whether this case can, “in equity and good conscience,” proceed without HVG as a party. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 19(b).
B. Rule 19(b)
Analyzing a non-party’s indispensability under Rule 19(b) requires the court, “in equity
and good conscience” to determine whether the action should proceed with the currently-named
parties, or if dismissal is appropriate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). Whether a person or entity is
indispensable depends on “pragmatic considerations.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, Advisory
Committee Notes to the 1966 Amendment; see also Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v.
Patterson, 390 U.S. 102, 116 n.12 (1968). Rule 19(b) lists four factors to consider when deciding
whether a non-party is indispensable. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). While these four factors are not
exhaustive, they “are the most important considerations in determining whether a party is
indispensable.” Gen. Refractories, 500 F.3d at 320.
The first two factors the court must consider are the prejudice the current parties and nonparties would face in the non-parties’ absence, and whether the court can lessen or avoid such
prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). As mentioned above, Farrell may be prejudiced because
HVG could later bring claims against Farrell. All of the members that could later sue Farrell
under the Operating Agreement, however, are already before this Court. See N.J.S.A. 42:2C-37
(in a manager-managed limited liability company, “any matter relating to the activities of the
company is decided exclusively by the managers”). Under HVG’s Operating Agreement, Farrell
is the only managing member. However, operating agreements may include provisions limiting a
manager’s authority. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 42:2C-11 (permitting members to establish restrictions
and liabilities of members and managers). In either scenario, any member that may have
decision-making power over HVG’s activities is present before this Court. The Court can
therefore prevent all members from later bringing a suit on HVG’s behalf. In addition, this Court
can require Plaintiffs to cause HVG to release its claims against Farrell as a condition of
judgment. Thus, because protective measures can diminish any prejudice Farrell could suffer,
dismissal is inappropriate.
Further, excluding HVG as a party causes it no prejudice. Although indispensability is a
question of federal law, state law governs the nature of the absent party’s interests. See Provident
Tradesmens, 390 U.S. at 125 n.22. Here, the relevant state law is New Jersey, because HVG is
organized pursuant to New Jersey law. The Court must first decide whether, under New Jersey
law, HVG has interests as an entity in this case. The Revised Uniform Limited Liability
Company Act governs all limited liability companies in New Jersey. See N.J.S.A. 42:2C-1.
Limited liability companies are separate legal entities. See Casella v. Home Depot USA, Inc.,
No. 09-0421 (JAP), 2010 WL 3001919, at *4 (D.N.J. July 28, 2010). However, under New
Jersey law, limited liability companies are more like partnerships than corporations. See, e.g.,
Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC v. C.I.R., 694 F.3d 425, 429 n.1 (3d Cir. 2012) (explaining that “an
LLC with two or more members is classified as a partnership for tax purposes”).
Tellingly, the section of the New Jersey code, N.J.S.A. 42:2C-1, dealing with limited
liability companies is a subchapter of the section regarding partnerships, N.J.S.A. 42. Courts
have decided that partnerships have interests as entities. See HB, 95 F.3d at 1192. Thus, HVG
may have interests as an entity in this case. However, just as a partnership’s interest can be
represented in litigation by the participation of its partners, HVG’s members can represent the
company’s interests in this case. See id. HVG consists of the Dursos and Farrell, all of whom are
before the Court. Although each member presumably has interests that are distinct from HVG’s,
this Court finds that the parties may adequately represent HVG’s interests. For instance, if HVG
has claims against Farrell, Plaintiffs can effectively advance these interests. See Delta Financial
Corp. v. Paul D. Comanduras & Assocs., 973 F.2d 301 (4th Cir. 1992) (holding that in an action
between the only two partners of a limited partnership, the partnership entity is neither necessary
nor indispensable). Therefore, the first two factors weigh against HVG’s indispensability.
The third factor under Rule 19(b) is “whether a judgment rendered in the [non-parties’]
absence would be adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). To determine this factor, the court considers
whether the remedy it will grant plaintiffs will be sufficient. See Gen. Refractories, 500 F.3d at
320-21. Here, the Court can adequately resolve Plaintiffs’ claims against Farrell in this action.
See Gardiner v. Virgin Islands Water & Power Auth., 145 F.3d 635, 642 (3d Cir. 1998) (finding
the resolution of claims in “one action” persuasive in an analysis of the third 19(b) factor). Thus,
this factor also weighs in favor of allowing Plaintiffs’ Complaint to proceed.
The fourth factor is “whether the plaintiff will have an adequate remedy if the action were
dismissed for nonjoinder.” Farrell argues that if the Court grants its motion, Plaintiffs would not
sustain any harm as “the parties can litigate the dispute . . . in the New Jersey Chancery Division.”
Nevertheless, Farrell can also file counterclaims against HVG in this action without destroying
subject matter jurisdiction. In a diversity action, the district court may exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over a defendant’s counterclaim against non-diverse parties joined as third-party
defendants to the counterclaims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Therefore, this factor is neutral in the
Court’s analysis under Rule 19(b).
Because all members of this small limited liability company are before the Court,
excluding HVG causes neither Farrell nor HVG any prejudice. The presence of all members
ensures that this Court can fashion a judgment with provisions protecting Farrell from a
subsequent suit relating to the claims at issue here. Moreover, Farrell has the option of bringing
counterclaims against Plaintiffs in this action under the District Court’s supplemental jurisdiction,
which defeats the risks of piecemeal litigation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Thus, even if HVG is a
necessary party under Rule 19(a), Farrell fails to prove that HVG is indispensable under Rule
19(b). Therefore, this action will not be dismissed for failure to join HVG pursuant to Rules
12(b)(7) and 19.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss the
Complaint [D.E. 4] for failing to join HVG as a party pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(7) and 19. An appropriate Order accompanies this Opinion.
/s/ Faith S. Hochberg__________
Hon. Faith S. Hochberg, U.S.D.J.
Dated: February 23, 2015
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?