Rossi v. DeChellis et al, No. 4:2024cv01674 - Document 22 (N.D. Cal. 2024)

Court Description: ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 18 Stipulation Regarding Certification of Order Denying Motions for Remand for Appeal and Corresponding Stay of Proceedings. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2024)

Download PDF

Rossi v. DeChellis et al 1 Doc. 22 8 Daniel C. Girard (SBN 114826) dgirard@girardsharp.com Adam E. Polk (SBN 273000) apolk@girardsharp.com Jordan Elias (SBN 228731) jelias@girardsharp.com Sean P. Greene (SBN 328718) sgreene@girardsharp.com GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kim Stevenson and Howard Tarlow 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KIM STEVENSON, et al., Case No. 23-cv-02277-HSG 13 Plaintiff, 14 15 16 v. GREGORY W. BECKER, et al., Defendants. 17 Date: Time: Judge: 18 19 20 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS STEPHEN ROSSI, et al., April 16, 2024 2:00 p.m. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Case No. 23-cv-02335-HSG 21 Plaintiffs, 22 23 24 25 v. GREGORY W. BECKER, et al., Defendants. 26 27 [additional caption on following page] 28 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. 23-CV-02277-HSG; CASE NO. 23-CV-02335-HSG; CASE NO. 24-CV-01674-YGR Dockets.Justia.com 1 STEPHEN ROSSI, et al., Case No. 24-cv-01674-HSG 2 Plaintiffs, 3 4 v. ANTHONY DECHELLIS, et al., 5 6 Defendants. 7 8 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12 and the Court’s March 28, 2024 Order Denying Motions to 9 Remand, (Stevenson Dkt. No. 87; Rossi I Dkt. No. 60) (“March 28 Order”), Plaintiffs Kim Stevenson, 10 Howard Tarlow, and Stephen Rossi (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants Gregory W. Becker, Daniel J. Beck, 11 Eric A. Benhamou, John S. Clendening, Richard D. Daniels, Alison Davis, Roger F. Dunbar, Joel P. 12 Friedman, Karen Hon, Jeffrey N. Maggioncalda, Beverly Kay Matthews, Mary J. Miller, Kate D. 13 Mitchell, John F. Robinson, Garen K. Staglin, KPMG LLP, Benhamou Global Ventures, LLC, Fifth Era, 14 LLC, Scale Venture Partners, Anthony DeChellis, Christopher Cooper, and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC 15 (collectively, “Defendants” and, together with Plaintiffs, the “Parties” and each, a “Party”), by and 16 through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows: 17 WHEREAS, on April 10, 2023, Plaintiffs Kim Stevenson and Howard Tarlow filed a putative 18 securities class action against certain Defendants in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa 19 Clara, captioned Stevenson, et al. v. Becker, et al., No. 23CV413949 (the “Stevenson Action”); 20 WHEREAS, on April 14, 2023, Plaintiff Stephen Rossi filed a putative securities class action in 21 the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging substantially similar claims against the 22 same Defendants named in the Stevenson Action, and also naming as Defendants Benhamou Global 23 Ventures, LLC, Fifth Era, LLC, and Scale Venture Partners, captioned Rossi v. Becker, et al., No. 24 23CV414120 (the “Rossi I Action”); 25 WHEREAS, on February 15, 2024, Plaintiff Stephen Rossi filed a putative securities class action 26 in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara alleging substantially similar claims against 27 Defendants Anthony DeChellis, Christopher Cooper, and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, captioned Rossi 28 1 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. 23-CV-02277-HSG; CASE NO. 23-CV-02335-HSG; CASE NO. 24-CV-01674-HSG 1 v. DeChellis, et al., No. 24CV431200 (the “Rossi II Action”) (together with the Stevenson and Rossi I 2 Actions, the “State Actions”); 3 4 WHEREAS, certain Defendants removed the State Actions to the District Court for the Northern District of California; 5 WHEREAS, Plaintiffs filed motions to remand the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions back to state 6 court (the “Remand Motions”), and the Parties to the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions briefed and argued 7 those motions to remand before the Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. (Stevenson, Dkt. Nos. 56, 66, 8 70, 77; Rossi I, Dkt. Nos. 39, 49, 50, 57); 9 WHEREAS, on March 27, 2024, pursuant to a stipulation of all parties, Plaintiffs submitted an 10 administrative motion to relate the Rossi II Action to the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions (Stevenson Dkt. 11 No. 86), and, as of the date of this filing, the Court has not yet ruled on relatedness; 12 WHEREAS, on March 28, 2024, this Court issued the March 28 Order, which denied Plaintiffs’ 13 motions to remand the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions, and further held that “the interests of clarity 14 would be best served by definitive guidance from the Ninth Circuit as to the recurring legal question of 15 whether Section 22(a) of the 1933 Securities Act [(“1933 Act”)] bars removal of even actions ‘related 16 to’ a bankruptcy action pursuant to Section 1452(a),” and thus directed the Parties to the Stevenson and 17 Rossi I Actions to submit a stipulation and proposed order certifying an interlocutory appeal of the 18 March 28 Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (the 19 “Interlocutory Appeal”); 20 WHEREAS, the Parties agree that staying the proceedings in district court in Stevenson and 21 Rossi I pending the resolution of the forthcoming Interlocutory Appeal will best serve the interests of 22 judicial economy, conservation of time and resources, and orderly management of Stevenson and Rossi 23 I; 24 WHEREAS, Plaintiff Rossi believes remand of the Rossi II Action to state court is appropriate 25 on the same bases set forth in the Remand Motions in the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions, and Defendants 26 in the Rossi II Action oppose remand; 27 28 2 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. 23-CV-02277-HSG; CASE NO. 23-CV-02335-HSG; CASE NO. 24-CV-01674-HSG 1 WHEREAS, Plaintiff Rossi and Defendants in the Rossi II Action agree that the March 28 Order 2 shall be determinative of whether the Rossi II Action is remanded to state court unless the March 28 3 Order is reversed, vacated, or modified by the Interlocutory Appeal, in which case the determination of 4 the remand issue by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Interlocutory Appeal shall be 5 determinative of whether the Rossi II Action is remanded to state court; 6 WHEREAS, upon a ruling relating the Rossi II Action to the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions, 7 Plaintiff Rossi and Defendants in the Rossi II Action anticipate submitting a stipulation, subject to Court 8 approval, staying the proceedings in district court in the Rossi II Action pending determination of the 9 Interlocutory Appeal; and 10 11 WHEREAS, the Parties have met and conferred as directed by the Court in the March 28 Order and submit this stipulation and proposed order accordingly. 12 NOW THEREFORE, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 13 1. The Parties agree that the March 28 Order involves (i) a controlling question of law, (ii) 14 as to which there are substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and (iii) that an immediate appeal 15 may materially advance the litigation’s ultimate termination. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); In re Cement 16 Antitrust Litig., 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1982). First, whether this Court has removal jurisdiction 17 is a controlling question of law. United States v. Woodbury, 263 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1959) 18 (describing as “fundamental” to a § 1292(b) analysis the question “whether a court to which a cause has 19 been transferred has jurisdiction”). Second, this Court’s observations that “[c]ourts are divided on 20 whether the removal bar of Section 22(a) trumps Section 1452(a)’s bankruptcy removal provision” and 21 that “[t]he Ninth Circuit has yet to consider the issue,”1 evidences that there are substantial grounds for 22 difference of opinion that the Ninth Circuit has not resolved. Finally, an immediate appeal of the March 23 28 Order “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation” because the controlling 24 issue is jurisdictional. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b); Cement Antitrust, 673 F.2d at 1026; Robbins Co. v. 25 Lawrence Mfg. Co., 482 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1973). If the Ninth Circuit agrees with Plaintiffs that the 26 27 28 1 March 28 Order at 4 (citing Cobalt Partners, LP v. Sunedison, Inc., No. C 16-02263-WHA, 2016 WL 4488181, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2016)). 3 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. 23-CV-02277-HSG; CASE NO. 23-CV-02335-HSG; CASE NO. 24-CV-01674-HSG 1 removal provisions of 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 1452(a) do not override the removal bar in Section 2 22(a) of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77v(a), its decision would terminate further litigation before the 3 district court and all three State Actions would be remanded back to state court. See Cobalt Partners, 4 LP v. Sunedison, Inc., 2016 WL 4488181, at *8 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (certifying “for interlocutory review 5 under Section 1292(b): whether Section 22(a) of the 1933 Securities Act bars removal of actions ‘related 6 to’ a bankruptcy action pursuant to Section 1452(a),” holding that the issue “involves a controlling 7 question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate 8 appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation”). 9 2. The proceedings in district court in the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions will be stayed 10 pending the resolution of the forthcoming Interlocutory Appeal, and no Defendant in the Stevenson or 11 Rossi I Actions shall have any obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the complaints in the 12 Stevenson or Rossi I Actions prior to resolution of the forthcoming Interlocutory Appeal and a schedule 13 is thereafter set for Defendants to respond. 14 3. Upon a ruling relating the Rossi II Action to the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions, Plaintiff 15 Rossi and Defendants in the Rossi II Action shall submit a stipulation, subject to Court approval, staying 16 the proceedings in district court in the Rossi II Action pending determination of the Interlocutory 17 Appeal. 18 4. In addition to being binding on all parties to the Stevenson and Rossi I Actions, the March 19 28 Order shall be binding on the parties to the Rossi II Action with respect to, and determinative of, 20 Plaintiff’s expected motion to remand the Rossi II Action to state court, unless the March 28 Order is 21 reversed, vacated, or modified by the Interlocutory Appeal, in which case the determination of the 22 remand issue by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Interlocutory Appeal shall be 23 determinative of whether the above-captioned actions, as well as the Rossi II Action, are remanded to 24 the state court. 25 5. This Stipulation is entered into without prejudice to any Party seeking any interim relief. 26 27 28 4 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. 23-CV-02277-HSG; CASE NO. 23-CV-02335-HSG; CASE NO. 24-CV-01674-HSG 1 6. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as a waiver of any of Defendants’ rights or 2 positions in law or equity, or as a waiver of any defenses, except as to sufficiency of service of process, 3 that Defendants would otherwise have, including, without limitation, jurisdictional defenses. 4 5 Dated: April 11, 2024 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 By: /s/ Adam E. Polk Daniel C. Girard (SBN 114826) dgirard@girardsharp.com Adam E. Polk (SBN 273000) apolk@girardsharp.com Jordan Elias (SBN 228731) jelias@girardsharp.com Sean P. Greene (SBN 328718) sgreene@girardsharp.com GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Kim Stevenson and Howard Tarlow 14 15 Dated: April 11, 2024 16 17 18 19 20 By: /s/ David W. Hall David W. Hall (SBN 274921) dhall@hedinhall.com Armen Zohrabian (SBN 230492) azohrabian@hedinhall.com HEDIN HALL LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 766-3534 Facsimile: (415) 402-0058 21 Attorneys for Plaintiff Stephen Rossi 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: April 11, 2024 By: /s/ Michael G. Bongiorno MICHAEL G. BONGIORNO (appearance pro hac vice) michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 5 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. 23-CV-02277-HSG; CASE NO. 23-CV-02335-HSG; CASE NO. 24-CV-01674-HSG 1 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 2 TIMOTHY J. PERLA (appearance pro hac vice) timothy.perla@wilmerhale.com ERIKA M. SCHUTZMAN (appearance pro hac vice) erika.schutzman@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 MICHAEL A. MUGMON (SBN 251958) michael.mugmon@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP One Front Street, Suite 3500 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (628) 235-1000 Facsimile: (628) 235-1001 10 11 12 13 14 Counsel for Defendants Eric A. Benhamou, Richard D. Daniels, Alison Davis, Roger F. Dunbar, Joel P. Friedman, Jeffrey N. Maggioncalda, Beverly Kay Matthews, Mary J. Miller, Kate D. Mitchell, John F. Robinson, Garen K. Staglin, Benhamou Global Ventures, LLC, Fifth Era, LLC, and Scale Venture Partners 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: April 11, 2024 By: /s/ Christopher W. Johnstone Christopher W. Johnstone (SBN 242152) chris.johnstone@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 2600 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Telephone: (650) 858-6147 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 Peter G. Neiman (appearance pro hac vice) peter.neiman@wilmerhale.com Jessica N. Djilani (appearance pro hac vice) jessica.djilani@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 6 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. 23-CV-02277-HSG; CASE NO. 23-CV-02335-HSG; CASE NO. 24-CV-01674-HSG 1 7 World Trade Center 250 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 2 3 4 Attorneys for Defendant Karen Hon 5 6 Dated: April 11, 2024 7 8 9 10 11 By: /s/ James N. Kramer James N. Kramer (SBN 154709) jkramer@orrick.com Alexander K. Talarides (SBN 268068) atalarides@orrick.com ORRICK HERRINGTON AND SUTCLIFFE LLP The Orrick Building 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 773-5900 Facsimile: (415) 773-5759 12 Attorneys for Defendant Gregory W. Becker 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: April 11, 2024 By: /s/ Jennifer S. Windom Jennifer S. Windom (appearance pro hac vice) jwindom@kramerlevin.com KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 2000 K Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 775-4500 Facsimile: (202) 775-4510 Kristopher Kastens (SBN 254797) kkastens@kramerlevin.com KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: (650) 752-1700 Facsimile: (650) 752-1800 Barry H. Berke (appearance pro hac vice) bberke@kramerlevin.com Darren A. Laverne (appearance pro hac vice) dlaverne@kramerlevin.com Daniel M. Ketani (appearance pro hac vice) dketani@kramerlevin.com KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP 7 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. 23-CV-02277-HSG; CASE NO. 23-CV-02335-HSG; CASE NO. 24-CV-01674-YGR 1 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 715-9100 Facsimile: (212) 715-8000 2 3 Attorneys for Defendant Daniel J. Beck 4 5 Dated: April 11, 2024 6 7 8 9 10 By: /s/ Richard H. Zelichov Richard H. Zelichov (CA SBN 193858) richard.zelichov@us.dlapiper.com DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400 North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 595-3180 Facsimile: (310) 595-3480 Bruce G. Vanyo (CA SBN 60134) bruce@katten.com Paul S. Yong (CA SBN 303164) paul.yong@katten.com KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-788-4401 Facsimile: 310-788-4471 11 12 13 14 15 16 Attorneys for Defendant John S. Clendening 17 18 Dated: April 11, 2024 19 20 21 22 Attorneys for Defendant KPMG LLP 23 24 25 26 27 28 By: /s/ Lisa R. Bugni Lisa R. Bugni (SBN 323962) KING & SPALDING LLP 50 California Street, Suite 3300 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 318-1200 Facsimile: (415) 318-1300 Email: lbugni@kslaw.com Dated: April 11, 2024 By: /s/ Ellen Leonida Ellen Leonida (SBN 184194) leonida@braunhagey.com BRAUN HAGEY & BORDEN LLP 351 California Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, California 94104 8 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. 23-CV-02277-HSG; CASE NO. 23-CV-02335-HSG; CASE NO. 24-CV-01674-HSG 1 Telephone: (415) 599-0210 2 Jason C. Rubinstein (pro hac vice pending) jrubinstein@fklaw.com FRIEDMAN KAPLAN SEIILER ADELMAN & ROBBINS LLP 7 Times Square New York, New York 10036-6516 Telephone: (212) 833-1100 3 4 5 6 Attorneys for Defendant Anthony DeChellis 7 8 Dated: April 11, 2024 9 10 11 12 13 By: /s/ Nicole L. Chessari Nicole L. Chessari (SBN 259970) NChessari@goodwinlaw.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 Marshall Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 752-3100 Facsimile: (650) 853-1038 Jonathan A. Shapiro (SBN 257199) JShapiro@goodwinlaw.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 3 Embarcadero Center San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 733-6202 Facsimile: (415) 276-3064 14 15 16 17 Robert Tiefenbrun (SBN 310975) RTiefenbrun@goodwinlaw.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 426-2500 Facsimile: (213) 623-1673 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attorneys for Defendant Christopher Cooper Dated: April 11, 2024 By: /s/ Daniel H.R. Laguardia Daniel H.R. Laguardia (SBN 314654) daniel.laguardia@shearman.com SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 140 New Montgomery Street, 10th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2997 Telephone: 415.616.1100 9 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. 23-CV-02277-HSG; CASE NO. 23-CV-02335-HSG; CASE NO. 24-CV-01674-HSG 1 Facsimile: 415.616.1199 2 8 Adam Hakki (pro hac vice pending) adam.hakki@shearman.com Daniel Lewis (pro hac vice pending) daniel.lewis@shearman.com Joshua Ebersole (pro hac vice pending) joshua.ebersole@sheaman.com SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP 599 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 848-4000 Facsimile: (212) 848-7179 9 Attorneys for Defendant Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. 23-CV-02277-HSG; CASE NO. 23-CV-02335-HSG; CASE NO. 24-CV-01674-HSG 1 2 ORDER Pursuant to stipulation, and having concluded for the reasons stated in the stipulation that the 3 March 28 Order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for 4 difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate 5 termination of the litigation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: 4/11/2024 8 9 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CERTIFICATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR REMAND FOR APPEAL AND CORRESPONDING STAY OF PROCEEDINGS CASE NO. 23-CV-02277-HSG; CASE NO. 23-CV-02335-HSG; CASE NO. 24-CV-01674-HSG

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.