BRANYON, JR. v. PHOENIX BUSINESS CONSULTING, INC.
Filing
57
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 3/5/2018; that Defendant Phoenix Business Consulting, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. # 40 ] is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. It is denied in part as to the portion of the Wage and Hour Act claim seeking commissions due on May 27, 2014 onward under the Second Anvil Contract for services provided by Kim Swartz. It is otherwise granted. (Sheets, Jamie)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JAMES C. BRANYON, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
PHOENIX BUSINESS CONSULTING,
INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:16CV673
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff James C. Branyon, Jr. has sued his former employer, Defendant
Phoenix Business Consulting, Inc. (“Phoenix”), for violations of the North Carolina
Wage and Hour Act (“Wage and Hour Act”) and seeks to recover, among other
relief, commissions he believes he is owed under three purported contracts – the
First Anvil Contract, the Second Anvil Contract, and the Grain Craft Contract.
(See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 21-35 [Doc. #2].) This matter is before the Court on
Phoenix’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #40]. Phoenix argues that the
Wage and Hour Act claim fails as a matter of law because the claims for
commissions under the Anvil Contracts are barred by the statute of limitations, the
claim under the Second Anvil Contract is not supported by the allegations in the
Complaint, and the claims under all Contracts are unsubstantiated by competent
evidence. (See Mot. for Summ. J. at 1-2; see also Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def.’s
Mot. for Summ. J. [Docs. #41, 45 (Sealed)].) For the reasons that follow,
Phoenix’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part. It is denied in part as to the
portion of the Wage and Hour Act claim seeking commissions due on May 27,
2014 onward under the Second Anvil Contract for services provided by Kim
Swartz. It is otherwise granted.
I.
Branyon was a sales associate with Phoenix from late 2005 or early 2006,
when Phoenix merged with Branyon’s previous employer, until his termination on
December 31, 2015. (James C. Branyon, Jr. Dep. 14:22-25, 25:1-3 (May 2,
2017) [Doc. #42-1]; Richard Michael Very, Jr. Dep. 135:18-22 (May 3, 2017)
[Doc. #42-2].)1 Phoenix, also doing business as Thorondor, provides Business
Planning and Control System (“BPCS”) software consulting and technical services.
(Very Dep. 29:18-19, 171:2-4.) As a sales associate for Phoenix, Branyon’s
primary duty was to secure contracts for Phoenix’s services by contacting
prospective and current clients to purchase Phoenix’s software and consulting
services. (Branyon Dep. 25:9-14.) He would do so by identifying and creating
demand for Phoenix’s services and developing relationships with customers. (Id. at
25:23-25.) If he were selling software, he “identif[ied], . . . qualif[ied,] and then
once the sale’s made, . . . turn[ed] it over and mov[ed] on to the next sale.” (Id. at
26:8-12.) On the other hand, if he were selling services, “it’s much more of a
1
Phoenix and Branyon both submitted portions of Branyon’s and Very’s
Depositions in support of their respective arguments. (See Docs. #42-1 (Excerpts
of Branyon Dep. submitted by Phoenix), #48-1 (Excerpts of Branyon Dep.
submitted by Branyon); Docs. #42-2 (Excerpts of Very Dep. submitted by
Phoenix), #49-1 (Excerpts of Very Dep. submitted by Branyon).) For judicial
economy, only one source is cited in instances in which a cited excerpt can be
found in more than one of these sources.
2
relationship sale” so he would “spend more time -- . . . constantly maintaining the
customers.” (Id. at 26:4-7.) This included “phone calls [and] visits”. (Id. at 26:1318.) Richard Very of Phoenix similarly described Branyon as the “interface
between the client and Phoenix to help maintain the customer support at a high
level[,] [t]o identify any new opportunities with that client[,] [t]o effectively seal
the deal on those new opportunities when he – when he could[, and] [t]o
continuously search for other new opportunities.” (Very Dep. 48:14-19.) A “big
portion of his responsibility” “was maintaining client relationships with those
clients that were assigned to him.” (Id. at 48:22-25.)
Effective January 1, 2009, Branyon operated under a compensation plan
(“2009 Compensation Plan”), according to which the parties agreed he would
receive a commission of nine percent of Phoenix’s gross sales for accounts
assigned to him. (Branyon Dep. 44:2-20, 46:7-18; Very Dep. 79:3-9, 94:8-18; Ex.
3 to Branyon Dep. [Docs. #42-3, #48-3].) The 2009 Compensation Plan reads, in
part, “9% Commissions on All Work @ $135/hour or higher up to $2.5 Sales”.
(Ex. 3 to Branyon Dep.)
In 2010, Anvil International, LP (“Anvil”), a BPCS services client of Phoenix,
decided to transition to new software, prompting Phoenix to undertake efforts to
sell Anvil its new software. (Branyon Dep. 28:14-25.) After Phoenix successfully
did so, it bid on the project to implement the software at Anvil’s facilities by
offering consulting services. (Id. at 30:15-19; 160:20-163:9.) Ultimately, as a
result of at least the work of Branyon, Anvil and Thorondor entered into a Master
3
Services Agreement (“MSA”) on October 3, 2011, according to which Thorondor
would provide services, either directly or through third parties, to Anvil as directed
in separately executed Services Work Authorizations (“SWAs”). (Very Dep. 88:4-5,
88:19-23, 89:18-24; Ex. 4 to Very Dep. [Docs. #42-4, 49-2 (Sealed)].) Attached
to the MSA was the initial SWA. (Ex. 4 to Very Dep.) This account was assigned
to Branyon. (Very Dep. 88:14-17.)
Nine days after the MSA was executed, on October 12, 2011, Very emailed
Branyon on the subject of “Anvil Commissions”. (Ex. 5 to Branyon Dep. [Docs.
#42-5, 48-5].) The email reads, in relevant part,
Jim – just to sum up what we discussed this morning:
...
Ongoing Services Commission on services provided by Thorondor
resources:
Jim – 9%
...
Ongoing Services Commission on services provided by other than
Thorondor resources – We need to discuss, but we would suggest the
commission be based on NET Profit Margin to Thorondor (if any).
These should be minimal.
. . . “.
(Id.) Branyon did not agree to the distinction between commissions paid on
services provided by Phoenix and those provided by subcontractors. (Branyon Dep.
74:3-20; Very Dep. 95:11-13.)
4
In February 2013, a subcontractor, Kim Swartz, began servicing Anvil under
the MSA. (Branyon Dep. 82:18-83:25; Very Dep. 161:13-16.) On October 1,
2013, Branyon emailed Very the following:
Rich
Per our discussions attached is a copy of the compensation that I
understand we are operating under.
Based on this plan I have the following current concerns:
Commissions for billings to Anvil do not appear to include services
subcontracted by PHOENIX to other companies including Infor.
Commissions for billings to Anvil for Kim Swartz to [sic] not appear to
match the terms of this plan[.]
I request that we address and resolve these issues.
(Ex. 6 to Branyon Dep.) Branyon was being paid nine percent of Swartz’s
net sales. (Very Dep. 94:19-22.) Very responded to Branyon’s email as
follows:
Jim – you and I discussed your commission to [sic] based on our net
from Anvil as we DID NOT HAVE to subcontract. We would not have
subcontracted to lose money.
Do you want commissions on the net or no subcontracting?
Your choice.
Rich V
(Ex. 6 to Branyon Dep.) Although Branyon does not recall an e-mail
response to Very, his overall response remained the same – disagreement
5
that he was to be paid commission on net sales by subcontractors. (Branyon
Dep. 76:11-20; Very 95:11-13.)
On May 27, 2016, Branyon filed suit against Phoenix alleging that it
violated the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act by failing to pay him
commissions earned under the 2009 Compensation Plan “related to the First
Anvil Contract, the Second Anvil Contract, and the Grain Craft Contract.”
(Compl. ¶ 55.) Branyon seeks commissions owed during his term of
employment, as well as those he believes are due from services provided
under the MSA after his termination.
II.
North Carolina recognizes commissions as wages that are protected
under the Wage and Hour Act and related regulations promulgated by the
North Carolina Department of Labor. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.2
(defining “wages” to mean commissions), 13 N.C.A.C. 12.0307(a)
(permitting employers to pay wages as commissions). As a result, an
employer must “notify employees of the employer[‘s] policies and practices
concerning pay, [and] wages based on . . . commissions . . .”, 13 N.C.A.C.
12.0307(b), and ambiguous policies and practices are “construed against
the employer and in favor of employees,” 13 N.C.A.C. 12.0307(c). Policies
and practices relating to commissions must address how and when the
commissions are earned so that the employee knows the commissions to
which he is entitled. 13 N.C.A.C. 12.0307(d)(1).
6
Employers may modify wages, but they must “[n]otify employees, in
writing . . ., at least 24 hours prior to any changes in promised wages.” N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 95-25.13(3). However, “[w]ages computed under a . . .
commission . . . policy or practice which does not establish specific earning
criteria [such as a policy that the employee earn commissions of xx% on all
‘sales’ (where sales are not defined by the employer)] cannot be reduced or
eliminated as a result of a change in policy or practice.” 13 N.C.A.C.
12.0307(e). On the other hand, if the commission policy or practice
establishes a specific earning criteria, “the employee is entitled to the . . .
commission . . . earned under the original policy through the effective date
of the change and is entitled to the . . . commission . . . earned under the
new policy from the effective date forward, so long as the earning criteria
are met under both policies.” Id.
The employer’s policy or practice relating to commissions must
address “[u]nder what conditions and in what amount . . . commissions . . .
will be paid upon discontinuation of employment.” 13 N.C.A.C.
12.0307(d)(2). An employee “whose employment is discontinued for any
reason shall be paid all wages due”. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.7. “Wages
based on . . . commissions . . . shall be paid on the first regular payday after
the amount becomes calculable when a separation occurs.” Id. § 95-25.7.
“Such wages may not be forfeited unless the employee has been notified in
accordance with G.S. 95-25.13 of the employer’s policy or practice which
7
results in forfeiture.” Id. If the employee is “not so notified”, he is “not
subject to such loss or forfeiture.” Id.
III.
Phoenix first moves for summary judgment on Branyon’s claim of
commissions owed under the First Anvil Contract because there is no
competent evidence of a “First Anvil Contract” and, even if there were, any
claim under it would be barred by the statute of limitations. Branyon does
not respond to Phoenix’s statute of limitations defense and, by failing to do
so, concedes the issue. See Oliver v. Baity, 208 F. Supp. 3d 681, 690
(M.D.N.C. 2016). In addition, analysis of Phoenix’s limitations defense
proves it to be correct.
According to the Complaint, Branyon “secured a contract between
Anvil and Defendant under which Defendant would provide Anvil services at
the rate of $180.00 per hour (the ‘First Anvil Contract’)”, but Phoenix did
not list this contract on Branyon’s commission statement because Very
claimed the margins were too low. (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 22.) During his
deposition, Branyon explained that “First Anvil Contract” refers to services
provided to Anvil during the early part of the software implementation
process, but that “[a]t this point, I don’t even know what they are. I’ve
never seen them.” (Branyon Dep. 62:9-63:4.) He clarified that “[t]here’s not
a contract – set contract between any of the companies, but there were
services provided that were never commissioned.” (Id. at 65:9-20.) His
8
belief that services were provided comes from speaking with two individuals
and other consultants “on site”, although Branyon does not know if they
were working under the particular SWA according to which services were
being provided. (Id. at 63:18-64:12.) “There would have been discussions
with Rich [Very] [from which Branyon] would have also gleaned that
information.” (Id. at 64:24-65:5.) Branyon testified that these services
would have been provided “[s]ometime beginning in 2011” and that he
“[p]robably first started to realize it in 2012, ’13 time frame.” (Id. at 64:3-6,
70:6-10.)
“Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party, ‘there is no genuine dispute as
to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law,’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).” Groves v. Commc’n Workers of Am., 815 F.3d
177, 181 (4th Cir. 2016). The moving party bears the initial burden of
establishing “the basis for its motion[] and identifying those portions of ‘the
pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
together with the affidavits, if any,’ which it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 323 (1986) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)2). The “mere existence of
some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an
2
Rule 56(c) was amended effective December 1, 2010, but the substance of the
rule did not change.
9
otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the
requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986). A dispute is genuine if a
reasonable jury, based on the evidence, could find in favor of the nonmoving party. Id. at 248. The materiality of a fact depends on whether the
existence of the fact could cause a jury to reach different outcomes. Id.
Actions under the Wage and Hour Act must be brought within two
years of the employer’s failure to pay the earned wage. N.C. Gen. Stat. §
95-25.22(f). The 2009 Compensation Plan states that Branyon’s
“[c]ommissions [are] [e]arned after client payment received and [p]aid at
next Commission Payment Cycle”. (Ex. 3 to Branyon Dep.) Fees for services
under the SWAs were to be invoiced weekly and were payable forty days
after receipt of the invoice. (MSA Ex. 4 to Very Dep.) Once the invoice is
paid, Phoenix would calculate Branyon’s commission and include it in the
“very next payment cycle” “which is a month.” (Very Dep. 187:23-188:2.)
As a result, the statute of limitations for a claim of commissions due would
begin to run approximately seventy-seven days after the services were
rendered. According to Branyon, the services under the First Anvil Contract
for which he alleges he is owed commissions were provided in 2011; yet, he
filed the instant action on May 27, 2016, well after the statute of limitations
period. As a result, Phoenix’s motion for summary judgment on the claim
for commissions owed under the First Anvil Contract is granted.
10
IV.
Next, Phoenix moves for summary judgment on the claim for
commissions owed under the Second Anvil Contract because there is no
competent evidence in support of the claim and, even if there were, the
claim is barred by the statute of limitations and not supported by the
allegations in the Complaint.
A.
As above, Branyon does not respond to Phoenix’s statute of
limitations defense and has, therefore, conceded the issue.3 Analysis of the
issue also shows that Branyon’s claim for commissions owed under the
Second Anvil Contract is partially time-barred.
In his Complaint, Branyon alleges that “Anvil later executed another
contract with Defendant (the ‘Second Anvil Contract’) according to which
the billing rate exceeded $180.00 per hour.” (Compl. ¶ 26.) Allegedly,
Phoenix refused to pay Branyon commission “on the total sales” because the
margins were too low. (Id.) At his deposition, Branyon testified that the
Second Anvil Contract refers to supply chain services provided by Kim
Swartz for the entire Anvil project. (Branyon Dep. 82:22-83:12.) He
explained that Swartz’s work began in February 2013, the same time frame
3
In his Response Brief, he appears to concede the issue, as well, when he
attaches his commission statements “showing [Swartz’s] sales under the MSA and
the commissions Defendant actually paid Branyon on her sales between May 27,
2014 and January 2016”. (Resp. in Opp’n at 7 (emphasis added).)
11
during which he initially discussed with Very, Sean Kissane, and Becky Hall
commissions he believed were owed under this Second Anvil Contract. (Id.
83:7-19.) Swartz continued servicing Anvil under the MSA at least until
January 2016. (See Phoenix Quick Reports (Ex. 7 to Resp. in Opp’n) [Doc.
#49-3 (Sealed)].) For the reasons explained above, supra § III, Branyon’s
claim for commissions due before May 27, 2014 for services provided by
Swartz is barred by the statute of limitations.
For commissions due from May 27, 2014 onward for services
provided by Swartz, Phoenix argues that it has paid Branyon in accordance
with “his 2009 Comp Plan, as modified in 2011.” (Mem. of Law in Supp. of
Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 21.) Yet, there are genuine disputes of material
facts surrounding this proposition. For example, there are genuine disputes
as to (1) whether the October 12, 2011 email noting the “need to discuss”
commissions paid for third-party services and “suggest[ing]” commissions
based on net profit margins suffices as written notice of a change in
promised wages in order to modify the 2009 Comp Plan, (2) whether the
October 12, 2011 email effectively changed Phoenix’s policy on
commissions, (3) whether Branyon earned his commissions on Swartz’s
services at the time the MSA was executed, when Anvil was invoiced, when
Phoenix received payment from Anvil, or some other time, and (4) whether
Branyon is entitled to commissions on services Swartz provided under the
MSA after the date of Branyon’s termination. (See, e.g., 2009 Comp Plan;
12
Email from Very to Branyon (Oct. 12, 2011); Emails Between Very and
Branyon (Oct. 1, 2013); Branyon Dep. 26:13-35:8 (describing work
performed after the execution of an MSA), 46:11-49:9 (explaining payments
for services after termination), 52:22-54:22 (explaining the assignment of
accounts once a sale is made), 72:23-74:20 (discussing the October 12,
2011 email and possible related discussions), 165:11-167:13 (explaining the
sale of the project as a whole); Very Dep. 88:14-89:5 (agreeing that
Branyon was expecting commissions based on the sale of the MSA assigned
to him), 90:2-20 (explaining that no services had been provided under the
MSA prior to the October 12, 2011 email), 94:14-25 (discussing
commissions paid on net revenue), 153:3-155:13 (explaining the
development of SWAs), 187:12-188:11 (describing the 2009 Comp Plan
and Phoenix’s understanding of when Branyon earned commissions); MSA
§ 1.)
Therefore, Phoenix’s motion for summary judgment on the claim for
commissions owed under the Second Anvil Contract is granted to the extent
Branyon seeks commissions due before May 27, 2014 for Swartz’s services,
but denied to the extent he seeks commissions due on May 27, 2014
onward for her services.
B.
Phoenix also challenges any argument that Branyon makes of
entitlement to commissions for services provided to Anvil after his
13
termination by all third parties, not just Swartz. Phoenix’s primary
contention is that Branyon did not allege entitlement to these commissions
in his Complaint and first raised the claim in a Motion to Compel Discovery
filed on the last day of the discovery period. (Mem. of Law in Supp. of
Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 26-27.) Branyon does not address this
challenge, but does advance an argument in support of entitlement to these
commissions. (See Resp. in Opp’n at 8, 19 & Ex. 8 to Resp. in Opp’n.)
However, he is not permitted to assert this new claim in his brief in
opposition to summary judgment.
In his Complaint, Branyon specifically alleges that he was owed
commissions for services provided under the First and Second Anvil
Contracts. (Compl. ¶¶ 20-29.) He also alleges that the 2009 Comp Plan
does not require him to forfeit commissions upon termination. (Id. ¶ 54.) At
his deposition, he explained that the services under the First Anvil Contract
for which he seeks commissions were performed in 2011. (Branyon Dep.
64:3-5.) He further explained that his reference to the Second Anvil
Contract is for services Swartz began providing in February 2013. (Id. at
82:18-83:25.) The only allegation in his Complaint that can be construed as
a claim for commissions for services provided by consultants other than
Swartz after his termination is his general allegation that, “Upon information
and belief, and subject to discovery in this action, Defendant owes wages to
Plaintiff in addition to the commissions discussed herein.” (Compl. ¶ 56.)
14
Had Branyon discovered evidence in support of a claim for
commissions on services provided by others after his termination, he needed
to seek leave to amend his Complaint. “[I]t is well established that a
plaintiff may not raise new claims after discovery has begun without
amending his complaint.” United States ex rel. Owens v. First Kuwaiti Gen.
Trading & Contracting Co., 612 F.3d 724, 731 (4th Cir. 2010); see also
Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 617 (4th Cir. 2009)
(stating the same); Cloaninger ex rel. Estate of Cloaninger v. McDevitt, 555
F.3d 324, 336 (4th Cir. 2009) (stating the same); Barclay White Skanska,
Inc. v. Battelle Mem’l Inst., 262 F. App’x 556, 563-64 (4th Cir. 2008)
(unpublished) (distinguishing between claims for money owed that were
encompassed in the complaint’s allegations and those that were not).
It is not enough that Branyon specifically alleged commissions due
under the First and Second Anvil Contracts and the Grain Craft Contract and
then alleged more generally that, upon information and belief and subject to
discovery, he is owed additional wages. A plaintiff may not “use that
general language to bootstrap new specific allegations and a new claim into
the complaint at summary judgment.” Hexion Specialty Chems., Inc. v. OakBark Corp., No. 7:09-CV-105-D, 2011 WL 4527382, at *9 (E.D.N.C. Sept.
28, 2011) (refusing to consider the new claim presented in summary
judgment brief); see also Hawke v. Discovery Commc’ns, LLC, No. PX 17542, 2017 WL 2964127, at *2 (D. Md. July 12, 2017) (limiting analysis on
15
summary judgment to three specific allegedly defamatory statements in the
complaint even though the complaint “also vaguely reference[d] ‘other
similar type statements’”). This is because “constructive amendment of the
complaint at summary judgment undermines the complaint’s purpose and
can thus unfairly prejudice the defendant.” Harris v. Reston Hosp. Ctr., LLC,
523 F. App’x 938, 946 (4th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (affirming the district
court’s refusal to consider the plaintiff’s new argument because she did not
request leave to amend her pleadings, leaving the defendant to conduct
discovery and a defense based on the claim in the complaint, “placing a
clear burden on [the defendant’s] ability to effectively and efficiently defend
itself”).
Here, Branyon did not seek leave to amend his Complaint to add a
claim for commissions on services performed for Anvil after his termination
by consultants other than Swartz. He may not now use his brief in
opposition to Phoenix’s motion for summary judgment to assert such a
claim.
V.
Phoenix also seeks summary judgment on Branyon’s claim for
commissions on services provided under the Grain Craft Contract because
Branyon cannot provide legally competent evidence to support the essential
elements of the claim. (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J.
at 27-28.) He testified during his deposition that he assumed Phoenix had
16
secured a contract with Grain Craft but admitted that he did not know that
to be the case. (Branyon Dep. 95:8-17.) In his Response Brief, Branyon
acknowledges that based on a September 8, 2015 email from Very, he
believed there were sales to Grain Craft for which he was not paid. (Resp. in
Opp’n at 8.) However, “[i]n Discovery, . . . it became apparent that there
were no additional sales”. (Id.) Therefore, it appears that Branyon concedes
that he is not due commissions under an alleged Grain Craft Contract.
Summary judgment is granted on the wages claim based on that contract.
VI.
Finally, Phoenix seeks attorney’s fees pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 95-25.22(d) which provides that “[t]he court may order . . . reasonable
attorneys’ fees to be paid by the plaintiff if the court determines that the
action was frivolous.” (Mem. of Law in Supp. of Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at
28-29.) Phoenix argues that Branyon’s Wage and Hour Act claim is
frivolous because (1) not only are commissions under the First Anvil
Contract time-barred, but Branyon admitted that the claim is based on
assumptions, (2) Branyon was made aware in September 2015 that there
was no Grain Craft Contract, and (3) clear legal authority contradicts
Branyon’s arguments in support of commissions under the Second Anvil
Contract. (Id.) The Court does not find Branyon’s Wage and Hour Claim, a
portion of which survives summary judgment, to be frivolous. Accordingly,
Phoenix’s request for attorney’s fees is denied.
17
VII.
For the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant
Phoenix Business Consulting, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc.
#40] is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. It is denied in part as to
the portion of the Wage and Hour Act claim seeking commissions due on
May 27, 2014 onward under the Second Anvil Contract for services
provided by Kim Swartz. It is otherwise granted.
This the 5th day of March, 2018.
/s/ N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge
18
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?