RLI Insurance Company v. Nexus Services, Inc., No. 5:2018cv00066 - Document 108 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 10/30/2018. (jv)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERKSOFFICE U. S. ATROANOK EDIST. COUR7 ,VA FILED IN TH E U N ITED STATE S D ISTRICT COU RT FO R TH E W ESTERN D ISTRICT O F W RGIN IA H ARRISO N BU RG D IV ISION OC' rJ a jg J v BK ' U KLIIN SU RAN CE CO M PAN Y, Plaintiffy CivilAction N o.5:18-CV-00066 V. N EXUS SERW CES,IN C., By: D efendant, M ichaelF.U tbansld ChiefUlaited StatesDistrictJudge V. JUAN VALOY,eta1.y lntervenors. M EM O RAN DU M O PIN IO N Thism atterisbeforethecoutton amodon tointerveneflled byluan Valoy,Edgar AlfredoRamos-Ramos,MarcelinoRamirez-sanchez,CesarAugustoGramajo,andGerson Castro Segeda.ECF N o.8.Them atterhasbeen fully briefed.The courtdispenseswith oral argum entbecause thelegalcontendonsate adequately presented in the m atedalsbefore the courtand argum entwould notaid thedecisionalprocess.Fotthe following teasons,the RLI Insurance Company v. Nexus Services, Inc. m odon to interveneisD EN IED . Doc. 108 RI,IInsuranceCompany (<TRI,1') andNexusServices,Inc.tffNexus''lentetedinto an indemnityagreementonlanuary20,2016rflndemnityAgreement') asconsideraéon fot RT,I'sagreem entto issue imm igraéon bonds.A sdetailed in thecourt'sopinion on the Dockets.Justia.com xC /RK E x extensivelylidgatedpteliminatyinjuncdon,R1,IallegesthatNexusbreachedtheIndemnity Agreem entforavazietyofreasons,including failtzre to provide accessto N exus'books, recordsandaccounts.ECFNo.59.ThecourtgtantedRI,Iapreliminaryitjuncdonthat required N exusto give accessto a selecéon ofitsbooks,recordsand accounts.ECF N o.60. Duringthecourseofbriefingandargumentforthepreliminaryinjuncdon,luan Valoy,EdgarAlfredoRamos-Ramos,MarcelinoRnmitez-sanchez,CesarAugustoGramajo, andGersonCastroSegeda(theTdlntervenors')movedtointerveneasdefendantsinthis acdon.ECF N o.8.The lntew enorsclnim they have arightto intervene undetFederalRule ofCivilProcedure24(a)because(1)theyhavealegallyprotectedinterestatstake- theit sensitive and confidentialpersonalinform ation located in docum entsheld by N exusand requestedbyRI.1;(2)theirinterestisimpaitedoncethepersonalinfot-matbnisdisclosed; and (3)neitherRT, InorNexusadequatelytepresentsthei. tinterestsbecauseofthepne es' hnancialinterestsin com pliancewith thebond tet-m s.ECF N o.8,at3-10.TheIntervenots alsoarguethatthecourtcouldgrantpeM issiveinterventionunderRule24$)becausethey intend to directly oppose the reliefsoughtby RT,1and theirdefensessharethe sam e queséonsof1aw and factatissuein tllisacéon.ECF N o.8,at10-12.Additionally,the Intezvenorsnote thatthey have stancling because disclosure oftheirpersonalinform adon is anitjurydirectly causedbyRI,1'srequest,whichwotzld beredressed byafavorabledecision by thiscourt.ECF N o.8,at 12-13. RI,1objectsto theintervendon asaNexus-created strategyto frtzstrateRT.I's enforcem entofitscontracm alrights.ECF N o.71,at2.RT, IarguesthattheIntew enors havenotcarried theirbutden ofdem onstrating theirzightto intervendon orthat 2 citcumstancessupportpet-missiveintervendon.ECFNo.71,at4-14.RT, Iclnims:(1)the allegedharm oftheinformadon'sfutureuseisspeculadve;(2)theIntervenorsandNexus have nearly idendcalinterestsin opposing enforcem entofthe lndem nityAgreem entfor privacyputposes,aswellasdefensesandreliefsought;(3)ordersin thisproceedingpreclude RT,Ifrom disclosingthisinformationtomostfhirdparties;(4)thelntervenorshavenot shown adversityofinterest,collusion,ornonfeasance;and (5)thelntervenorshavenotpled factsconnecdng them to theIndem nityAgreem entortheim m igradon bonds,including for purposesofstanding.Ld.aM oreovet,11Llcontendsthatintervenéon couldopen the floodgatestothe2,400otherbondprincipals,theirfamilies,andfriends,andcouldprejudice RLIbecausetheIntervenorsm ay wotk with N exusto fm strateR' Ll'senforcem entefforts throughdilatorylitkationtacdcs.ECF No.71,at14-17. ln zesponse,the lntervenorsdenied RI, I'saccusationsthattheitproposed intew endon wasa lidgation tacdcbenehdng N exus.ECF N o.75,at2.N exus,foritspat't, agreed wit.h the Intervenors'm oéon and notesthatcounselforthe Intew enorspossesses knowledgeaboutim m igzation proceedingsand N exus'clients.ECF N o.78. II. Rule24(a)(2)governsintervenéonbyrkht,andptovidesasfollows, O n tim ely m otion,the cout'tm ust pe= it anyone to intervene who ...clsim san interestreladng to theproperty or tzansacdon thatisthesubjectoftheaction,andisso situated thatdisposing of the action m ay as a pracécalm atter im pair or impede the m ovant's ability to protect its interesta unless exiséng pnrties adequately reptesentthatinterest. Fed.R.Civ.P.24(a)(2).Thus,in addiéon todemonstratingtimelinessofthemoéon,an applicantmustshow:(1)intetestin thesubjectmatteroftheacdon;(2)thattheprotecéon ofthisintetestwouldbeimpaitedbecauseoftheacéon;and(3)thattheapplicant'sintetest isnotadequately represented by exise g pnt-tiesto the lidgadon.SeeTea ev.Bakker,931 F.2d259,260-61(4th Cir.1991).<f(A)disttictcotutisfentitled tothefullrangeofreasonable discreéon'todete= inewhetherthereqe ementsofintervendonasamatterofrkhthave been m et.'?Liberty M ut.FizeIns.Co.v.Lum berLiquidatozs,Inc',314 F.R.D .180,183 (E.D.Va.2016)(quotingCom.ofVa.v.W esdn houseElec.Co .,542F.2d214,216(4th Cit.1976)). Rule24$)providesforpetmissiveintervendonofpntqies.Rule24q$(1)7)statesthat on tim ely m odon,the courtm ay pernnitanyone to intervenewho ffhasaclnim ordefense thatshareswit.h the m ain acéon a com m on queséon of1aw orfact.'?Fed.R.Civ.P. 249$(1)7).Thecourtenjoyssubstanéaldiscredonoverallowingorrejecdngmotionsto interveneunderRule244$.SeeSmithv.Pennington,352F.3d884,892 (4th Cir.2003)9Hill v.W esternElec.Co.,672F.2d381,385-86(4thCir.1982). 111. Thelntervenotsarguethattheyateentitledtointerveneasamatterofrkhtunder FederalRuleofCivilProcedure24(a),oralternadvely,thatthecourtshouldpermitthem to interveneunderRule249$.ThecoutthndsthattheIntervenotsfailto demonsttatetheiz needtointerveneundereitherRule24(a)or(b). A. UnderRule24(a),theIntervenorscannotestablish each elementteqe ed for intew ening asa m atterofright.The Intetvenorsdo saésfythe tim elinessrequirem ent.The lntew enotsm oved to intervenewithin two weeksofRLIflling itscom plaintand them odon 4 forpreliminaryinjunction.Thecaseisstlllinitsearlystages,withonlytheiniéalpleadings flledand discoveryrecentlycommencingpertheJointDiscoveryPlan.lSeeUnked Statesv. Vkginia,282F.R.D.403,405(E.D.Va.2012)rtW hereacasehasnotprogressedbeyondthe iniéalpleading stage,amoéon tointerveneistimelp').However,theIntervenorsfailto demonstratethattheyhaveaninterestinthesubjectmattetoftheacdon,thatthisacdon would im pairthe protection ofthatalleged interest,orthatthei. tinterestisnotadequately represented by theexisting pardesto the liégation.SeeTeague,931 F.2d at260-61. TheIntervenorsfailto exple how theyhaveaninterestin thesubjectmatterofthis acéon,w hich isthe alleged breached oftheIndem nityAgreem ent.To dem onstrate intervendon by right,the Intervenotsneed to show Tfa signihcantlyprotectableinterest,''as (<ageneralinterestinthesubjectmatterofpendinglitkation doesnotconsétaztea protectableinterestwithinthemeaningofRule24(a)(2).''D ' MaidD ' lnc.v.United States,147F.R.D.109,111(E.D.Va.1993)(quoe ginpartDonaldson v.UnitedStates,400 U.S.517,542 (1971)).An interestisprotectableifanintervenor'scllim ordefenseffbearlsja closerelationslùp to thedispute between theexiséng lidgantsand therefore m ustbedirect, rathetthan rem oteorcontingent.''Id.H ere,theIntetvenorsm akeconclusory asserdons aboutthei. tinterestin thisacdon.Although thelntetvenorsundeniably havean interestin theirinfozmaéondisclosedinthisaction,thatalonedoesnotestablisharkhtof intervendon.Theitprivacy interestdoesnotbeara close relationsllip to whetherRT.Ior N exusbreached the lndem nityAgzeem entdudng the course oftheirbusinessreladonslùp. Tllisisbolstered by the factthattheIntervenorsdo notclnim to be third-party benehciaties 1Thecotutnotesthatdisclostueshavebeenreleasedperthepreliminaryinjlmcdon,buttheyhavebeensubjecttoa protecdveozder. to theIndem nityAgteem entand havenotatgued thatthey possessa specifk legally protectabletightin thisinformation.Cf.United Statesv.Vit ' 'a,282F.R.D.403,405(E.D. Va.2012)(f<Fur 'thetvnote,thePeééonetshaveasignifkant,protectableinterestinteceiving theapptopriatecateoftheitchoiceandpzotecdngtheirtightsundertheADA....rllhe Com plaintcontainsaverybroad requestforreliefthatditectlyim plicatesthetightsand intetestsofthePetidoners.'). M oreover,dfgtjheFourth Circuithasheldthatan interestcopdngenton theoutcome ofotherpendinglitkationqualifesasTsignificantlyprotectable.'''Linkousv.Am.Alternadve Ins.Co .,No.7:11-CV-278,2011K 4894233,at*2 (W .D.Va.Oct.13,2011)(citing Tea ue,931F.2d at261);seealsoTitan AtlasM f .Inc.v.Sisk,No.1:11CV00012,2014W L 837247,at*3 (W .D.Va.Mar.4,2014)(denyingintervendon byrightwhetetheintewening indem nitorfTarguesthatitsdisputeswith Titan in N ew York and South Carolinaare influenced byTitan'sdisputewith PM R in thiscourt''and ffaclm itsthatitisnotpat'tofthat dispute').Here,however,theIntervenors'interestisnotcondngenton theoutcomeofthis M gation,and they have notshow n thatthey havea signifkantlyprotectableinterest. The Intezvenorsalso have notdem onstrated thattlzisacéon m ay pracécally im pairoê im pede theiralleged interestin tllisinfotm aéon.The courthasim plem ented ptivacy protecéonsforthe disclosuresm adeto date in tllisacéon.Thecolzrtfutthernotesthat N exus'currentand form erclients,which m ay include the Intervenors,havewaived thei. r privacy rightsto atleastsom eoftheinform ation held in N exus'books,recordsand accounts.Forexam ple,the G PS Addendum to theContractforIm m igradon Bond Seckuiézation and Indem nityAgteem entzstates:<TIundetstand thatinfotm aéon ptovided to Libreby N exusislikewiseprovided to thelicensed surety who poststhebond in the respondent'scase.':ECF N o.13-2,at22. Addidonally,asnoted above,theIntervenors'intezestsw ould notbeim paired because they have the oppottunity to lidgatewhethertheirpzivacy intezestsartviolated in anotheracéon.A sepatate acéon regarding theseprivacy intetestsisfatm ore appropdate than defending againstabreach ofcontractaction in wlzich theIntervenorsareneithera signatory to the contractnoralleged to bein breach ofsaid contract.U ltim ately,the Intew enorsofferno m ore than conclusoryallegaéonsasto how theirinterestw ould be impaitedbythisbreachofcontractacdon.SeeLinkous,2011W L 4894233,at*2rfplaindff would notchangeasaresultoftlliscase.W hile ithasspilled considerableink desctibing its interest,StateFatm hasnotm ade a singlenon-conclusory atgum entasto why thatinterest would beimpairedorimpededwithoutintervendon.');fsfsIn re:HolocaustVictim Assets L-tV .,225F.3d 191,199(2dCir.2000)(upholdingclistrictcouzt'sderlialofintervendonasof dghteven wherepzoposedintervenorsfçwould facemanysignifqantobstacles''without intervenéon). Perhapsm ostimportantly,the Intelvenorshave notshown thatN exusm ay inadequately representtheirinterests.The Intervenorsffneed notshow thatthe representadon by existing pardeswilldefnitely beinadequate,''seeILS.Inc.v.Pub.Serv. Comm'n ofW .Virinia,321F.App'x286,289(4th Cir.2009),and theburden ofshowing inadequacy oftepresentation isnninim al.SeeTrbovich v.U nited M ineW orkersofAm .,404 2' Fhe'partiesdid notreferencetlzisfo= in thebriesng,butthecourttakesnodceofitasN exusftledtheform asan exhibittoitsmemorandllm of1aw inopposidontothemodonforpreliminaryitjuncdon. U.S.528,538n.10(1972).However,theIntervenorshavenotshownthattherepresentadon hasbeen inadequatein any way to date,and theirconcernsaboutinadequatetepresentadon m oving forwatd are speculadve.N exusand thelntervenorsseek the sam ereliefof prevendng the disclosuteoftheclients'infotm adon in N exus'books,recordsand accounts, and advancenearlyidenticalaffit-m ativedefenses.Both the Intew enorsand N exuswantto preventthe disseminadon ofthe lntervenors'personalinfotm ation dudng and aftezthis lawsuit.Theysharethesameobjecdveregardingdisclosureofinfotmationinthisacdon. ffW henthepartyseekingintervendonhasthesameultimateobjecdveasapartyto thesuit,apresum ption arisesthatitsinterestsareadequately represented,agninstwhich the peddonermustdem onsttate adversityofinterest,collusion,ornonfeasance.''Com .ofVa.v. W esdn houseElec.Cor .,542F.2d214,216(4thCir.1976)(cilingOrdnanceContainer Co .v.S er Rand Co .,478F.2d 844 (5th Cir.1973)).Although Nexus'and the Intervenors'intetestsatenotprecisely aligned,ajN exushasfinancialinterestsand the Intervenorshaveprivacyinterests,theIntervenorshavenotpresented evidenceofadvetsity ofinterest,collusion,otnonfeasance.N exushasaggressively defended theprivacyrightsof itsfotvnerand currentclientsin thisacdon.A representaéve ofN exusin facttesdfied thatits com m ir entto m nintnining theitclients'privacyisessentialto thei. rbusinessm odel.See, q.g.,Prel.lnj.Htg.Tr.ECF No.23,at110 (Apr.27,2018)(respondingto thequesdon of . how N exus'businessm odelwould beaffected by a surety shmring inform adon forthe pum ose ofdetendon,N exus'vicepresidentofrisk m anagem entstated:ffltw ould absolutely desttoy ourbusinessm odelbecause no one- people com e to usbecauseweunderstand and 8 we supportthem and w alk with them .Ifthey thoughtthatifthey cam eto ustherewould be ashortamountoftimeandtlaeywouldjustbete-detained,noonewoulduseotu service.'l. Anyconcern thatNexusmaychangecourseiseneelyspectzlativeatthisjuncture. SeeW esén houseElec.Co .,542F.2dat216 (hndingproposedintervenor'sconcern about settlem entnegoéadonsbeing conducted in a m anneradverseto itsinterestsasrfunfounded'' withouttheintroduction ofproofsupporting theconcern);. ç-iVit 'rliaUranblm Inc.v. McAuliffe,No.4:15-CV-00031,2015WL 6143105,at*3(W.D.Xa.Oct.19,2015)(fThe strong presumpdon arisesthatD efendantsadequatelyrepresentthe basin associadons' intetests.Both are ultim ately concerned thatthe Coutthold thattheAEA doesnotpreempt Va.CodeAnn.j45.1-283.:').Therealso hasnotbeen anysuggesdon ofcollusion between RT-Iand N exus,asevidenced by theextensive M gadon to date,ornonfeasanceby N exus.3 Based on the argum entand inform adon provided by the Intervenots,N exuscan adequately representthei. rinterests. The Intervenorsfailed to show thatthey have asignificantly protectable interestin thesubjectmatteroftheacdon,thattheprotectionofthisinterestwould beimpaited becauseoftheacdon,orthatthetheizinterestisnotadequately represented by N exus.See Tea e,931 F.2d at260-61.Theyhavenotcarried thei. rburden forpurposesof dem onstraéng theirtightto intew enein thisacéon. 3A ddidonally,although notaddressed by thepardes,theIntervenorsdo notallege thatN exuswillprioritize theirprivacy interestslesstlzan otherclients'inform adon,nordoesthe record suggestsuch aconcem .Cf.United G uar.Residenti al Ins.Co.ofIowav.PhiladelhiaSav.FundSoc.,819F. 2d473,476(4t11Cir.1988 (fttzdingtrt zsteedidnotadequately representproposed intezvenor'sinterestsbecausefftheBank herehasa broaderinterestin protecting allofthe certifcate holdersthandoesPhiladelphia'snarrowerit zterestinprotectingitsownmortgageceztificates'). 9 B. UnderRule24$),thecouttmaypetmitintetvendonTflojntimelymodon''byanyone who ffhasa clqim otdefense thatshateswitlathe m ain action a comm on quesdon oflaw ot fact.''Fed.R.Civ.P.24q$(1)1).Indetev iningwhethertope= itintervendon,thecourt mustffconsidetwhethettheintervendonwitlundulydelayorprejudicetheadjudicationof theoriginalpardes'rights.''Fed.Civ.P.249$(3).Thus,wheremovantsseekpermissionto interveneundetRule24@ ,theymustestablisheachofthefollowingelements:(1)thattheir motion isHmely;(2)thattheirclnimsordefenseshaveaqueséon oflaw orfactin common with themain acdon;and (3)thatintetvenéonwillnottesultinunduedelayorprejudiceto theexisting pao es.SeeW ri htv.Iitis Ie em eD ou hnuts lnc.,231 F.R.D .475,479 (M .D.N.C.2005). Asexplained previously,theIntervenotssadsfythe tim elinessrequirem ent.H owever, based on thepaperspresented,the lntervenorsdo nothave acloim ordefensethatsharesa quesdon oflaw orfactwit. h thisacdon.The lntervenorsacknowledge thatthey do not advancenew claim s,butffintend to directlyopposeglhLl'slrequestsforrelief....''ECF No. 8,at11.These defensesincludechallenging theenforceabilityand interpretadon ofthe Indem nityAgreem ent,and relying on theequitable defensesofunclean hands,w aiver,and estoppel.ECF N o.8,at11-12.The lntervenorsdo notclnim to be thitd-party benehciaties oftheIndem rlityAgreem entand do notpresenta clearatgam entasto how a thitd-party could challengea private contract.M oreover,allofthesedefensesaze onesadvanced by N exusand are notspecifk to theIntervenors.Itisunclearhow the Intervenorssubstandvely could add to the casegiven the advancem entofthe sam e defensesand N exus'acdveand 10 zealouspursuitofsafeguarding itsbooks,recordsand accountsin thisacdon.Cf. W es% houseElec.Cor .,542F.2d at217 (ffx'hetrialcourt,delugedwith addiéonalbziefs and pleadings,would beptovided with no new viewpointsand littleifany ilblm inadon to the originalWesdnghousecontractsdisputes.'). Thelntervenorsmayhaveanequitableptivacyinterestinthehkhlypersonal informadonsubjecttothelndemnityAgteement.Howevet,assessingwhethetctutentand form erclientsofN exusm ay have som e equitableprivacyinterestin the inform adon held by N exusisatem arkably diffetentinquirythan whetherN exusorItLIbreached theIndem nity Ar eem ent.In fact,denying intervendon isunlikely to lead to inconsistentrulingsasitis conceivablethatthiscouttcould find the Indem nityAgreem entenforceablewhileanother cout'tconsidersthe lntervenors'interestin N exus'books,recordsand accountswithout even addtessing thevalidity ofthe agreem ent.Cf.U .S.ex rel.M ilestoneTarant, Ltf /ldighland O rnam entalIron W orks.lnc.v.Fed.Ins.Co.,815 F.Supp.2d 36,39 (D.D.C.2011)rfThelointVentuteismoreEkelytobeprejudicediftllisCourtdoesn'tallow M anhattan to interveneto have the conflicdng cbim ssorted outbecause sorting them out oneatatimecould'leadto conflictingt'ulingsand wotzld certainlytakemuchmoretime.'). The Intervenorsm ay sharean intetestin the disclosed inform adon,butthey do notshare a com m on quesdon of1aw orfactwith the breach ofcontractatthe heattofthisacdon. The Intervenors'lack ofcleardefensesasnonpartiesto the lndem nityAgteem ent alsorisksundulydelayingthisaction andprejudicingRT, I.TheIntervenors'proposed defensesoverlap with N exus,butthey haveno clearstake in the Indem nityAgreem entand thusthe Intervenors'approach inherently differsfrom N exus.Cf.United Statesv.State,N o. 11 1:16CV425,2016W L 3626386,at*3(M.D.N.C.June29,2016)(f%ecausetheptoposed intervenots'defensesand countercbim slargely overlap w1t11thelegaland facm alissuesthat . arealready preseniin the m ain action,the addidon ofthesepardesisnotlikely to signifkantly com plicatetheproceeclingsorunduly expand the scope ofany discovery itltlzis case.').Dete= iningwhethetthelntervenorshavestandingtopursuethesedefensesand the necessntilydifferentmannerinwllich theypursuethesedefenses(astheydidnotsign the contract)willsignifkantlycomplicatetheproceeclings.Therelikelywouldneed tobe discovery to deterrninewhetherthe Intew enorshave standing in thisacdon and to what degtee they have an interestin theenforceabilityofthelndem nityAgreem ent.Furtherm ore, theproposed answ erdoesnotstate the lntew enors'zesidency status,leaving the cotut unableto dete= inewhethertheiradcliéon would destroyjutisdicdon. Ultimately,intervenéonwouldprejudiceRT,Ibyreqlxitingitto defendtllisacdon on m to ple frontsand undoubtedly delay and com plicate thisacdon thtough expanded discoveryanéaddidonalpretrialmodons.Thecourtw. illnotallow thatto happen.Thiscase alteady hasbeen rem arkably com plex w1t. 11a numberofhearingsfortheprelim inary injunction,theappoin% entofaspecialmaster,andnow amodonforasecondpreliminary itjuncéon.Ifthelntervenorswantto challengetheirprivacyintetestsin theinformadon covered by thelndem rlityAgreem ent,they m ay separately pursuea case againstRLIor N exus.Tllisacdon rem ainsadispute be> een thetwo partiesthatsigned the Indem nity A greem entand willbelim ited to abreach ofcontractaction. Thecotutrecognizesthatffliberalintervenéon isdesirable to disposeofasm uch ofa controversy involving asm any apparently concetned personsasiscom padblewith efhciency 12 anddueprocess.';Fellerv.Brock,802F.2d722,729(4thCir.1986)(internalquotadon marksomitted).However,permitdngintervendonin tlaisacéon onlywould tack on ancillaty issuesarising from N exus'businesspracécesin reladon to the Indem nity Agreem ent. lntervendon isnotcom patiblewith effciency and dueprocessin thisacdon.A ccordingly; thecourtwillallow nottheIntew enorsto permissivelyintervenein thisacdon underFederal RuleofCivilProcedtue244$.AstheIntewenors'motbntointervenewillbedenied,their m oéon forD allasS.Lepierreto appearpro hacviceon theirbehalfin thisacdon isnow m oot.ECF N o.10. IV . Forthesereasons,the courtwillD EN Y the lntervenors'm otion to intervene as defendants(ECF No.8)andmodonforDallasS.Lepierretoappeatprohacvice(ECF No. 10). An appropdate O zderwillbeentered. &i Entered: / . Jfa f @ : ) .. ï t 1 $# ' $ ' ' k . f$, - zf t'.,z , . '* .'''' , .-;. ., y.s;j!yjsj.,s. .ç ..,... '' ' - ..J Mic.ae1F. r acski . C ,efUnited StatesDistdctludge 13 t : ' -
]]>
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.
