Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LaShawn D. Jenkins (021840) JENKINS LAW FIRM 4020 North 20th Street, Suite 100 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: 602-283-9868 Facsimile: 602-412-3954 Email: LaShawn.Jenkins@thejenkinslawfirm.com Manotti L. Jenkins Law Offices of Manotti L. Jenkins, LTD. 655 West Irving Park Road, Suite 306 Chicago, Illinois 60615 (312) 208-9537 (Tel.) (872) 228-8153 (Fax) [Pro Hac Vice Application will be filed] Attorneys for Plaintiff David Kelly 11 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 14 15 DAVID E. KELLY, 16 Case No. __________________ Plaintiff, 17 18 19 20 21 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES [Copyright Infringement] vs. THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE and SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, individually; and DOES I through XX, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, David E. Kelly (hereinafter, the “Plaintiff” and “Mr. Kelly”), by and through his attorneys of record, Manotti L. Jenkins of the Law Offices of Manotti L. Jenkins, LTD, and LaShawn D. Jenkins of the Jenkins Law Firm, and alleges as Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 follows: I. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. At all times relevant to the allegations in this Complaint, Mr. Kelly resided in Maricopa County, Arizona, and was thus a citizen of the State of Arizona. 2. Defendant Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (hereinafter, “Defendant MCSO”) is the Sheriff’s Office of a county subdivision of the State of Arizona. Defendant MCSO is subject to suit for illegal acts of copyright infringement as alleged in this Complaint. 3. Defendant Sheriff Joe Arpaio (hereinafter “Defendant Arpaio”), on information and belief, at all relevant times hereto was the Sheriff of Maricopa County, did reside and does reside in said county, and thus was/is a citizen of the State of Arizona. Defendant Arpaio engaged in the individual acts of copyright infringement and the state law violation complained of herein both in accordance with and outside of the parameters and responsibilities of his official capacity as Sheriff. 4. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, et seq., and §§ 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 5. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. Defendant MCSO is the Sheriff’s Office of a county subdivision of the State of Arizona. Defendant Arpaio is the Sheriff of Maricopa County and a citizen of the State of Arizona. Both Defendants are doing business in the State of Arizona and have committed unlawful and tortious acts within the State of Arizona. Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the conduct that gives rise to personal jurisdiction over the Defendants. 6. Venue for this matter is proper in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), as a substantial part of the events or 25 26 2 Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 omissions giving rise to the claims set forth herein occurred in this judicial district, and pursuant to §§ 1391(b)(2) and 1400(a). 7. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as DOES I through XX are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious name. Plaintiff alleges that each DOE defendant is, in some manner, legally responsible for some or all of damages described herein. When the identity of said Defendants is ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this complaint to reflect their true identities. II. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 8. On September 11, 2001, our country was victimized by a terrorist attack that will forever be chronicled in the annals of U.S. and world history. Determined to proceed with our national past times, certain professional sporting events took place as scheduled, including the 2001 Major League Baseball World Series between the Arizona Diamondbacks and the New York Yankees. 9. The Plaintiff, Mr. Kelly, was then and still is a professional photographer and was then doing business under the name, “Big League Photos.” Mr. Kelly attended the opening game of the 2001 World Series, which took place on October 27, 2001, in Phoenix. Before the ceremonial first pitch, Mr. Kelly was able to photographically capture a vivid and powerful image of the two teams lined up on the baseball diamond – the Diamondbacks extending along the third base line, from third base to home plate, and the Yankees extending along the first base line, from home plate to first base. On the left side of the photograph, between the second and third bases, the Phoenix Fire Department is captured symbolically raising the tattered American flag from the World Trade Center. In the foreground were fans seated just behind home plate and in the background was a massive American flag being held by a group of persons, slightly adjacent to a group of honor 26 3 Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 4 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guardsmen holding smaller versions of the flag. Entitled, “Remembering September 11th, 2001,” the Plaintiff registered the photograph with the United States Copyright Office (hereinafter, the photograph is referred to as: the “Copyrighted Photograph”). Attached hereto as Ex. A is a true and correct copy of the Copyrighted Photograph. Attached hereto as Ex. B is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s U.S. Copyright, Reg. No. VA0001175518 (hereinafter, the “Federal Copyright”). 10. On September 10, 2002, Plaintiff met Raymond Cedric Young (hereinafter, “Mr. Young”). Mr. Young represented himself to Plaintiff as an upstanding, former Major League baseball player who knew a lot of people and had many connections in professional baseball and among sports memorabilia dealers. Plaintiff considered a potential business arrangement with Mr. Young to be a superb way to proliferate on a mass scale the Copyrighted Photographs, to aid in the process of healing a severely wounded nation. 11. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, Mr. Young had served prison time under the authority of the Arizona Department of Corrections for at least two forgery convictions in the 1990’s, both crimes having occurred in Maricopa County during the tenure of Defendant Arpaio. Mr. Young had additional criminal bouts with the Arizona authorities throughout the 2000’s that occurred in Maricopa County during the tenure of Defendant Arpaio. 12. Totally unaware of Mr. Young’s deceitful history and criminal past, Plaintiff and his company, Big League Photos, entered into an agreement with Mr. Young on September 16, 2002 (the “Agreement”). Under the Agreement, Mr. Young was to serve as a sales agent for Big League Photos with respect to the wholesale distribution of posters bearing the image of the Copyrighted Photograph (hereinafter, the posters are referred to as the “Copyrighted Posters). For his services, Mr. Young was to receive compensation at a rate of forty percent (40%) commission on his sales to new customers and fifteen percent (15%) commission on customer reorders. Also under the Agreement, Big League Photos 26 4 Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 5 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was to retain exclusive rights to the worldwide distribution of the Copyrighted Posters. Further, the Agreement provided that Mr. Young was to submit any orders for sales of the Copyrighted Posters by fax or e-mail directly to the Plaintiff and Big League Photos for approval, and the exclusive responsibility to print and ship the Copyrighted Posters remained with the Plaintiff and Big League Photos. 13. In September 2002, shortly after entering into the Agreement with the Plaintiff, Mr. Young began executing his plans to violate the Agreement, and he subsequently did just that. First, Mr. Young mass produced a business card that illegally represented that he was the owner of Big League Photos, which was Plaintiff’s company through which Plaintiff executed the Agreement and in association with which he obtained the Federal Copyright. Mr. Young used the phony business cards to deceive several copying companies to mass produce, on information and belief, in excess of 300,000 counterfeit copies of the Copyrighted Posters. 14. From there, Mr. Young commenced to orchestrate a colossal scheme of distributing, for financial gain and at the Plaintiff’s expense, massive amounts of the counterfeit Copyrighted Posters to over 100 vendors throughout the country – vendors who in turn made millions of dollars exploiting Plaintiff’s intellectual property. Moreover, Mr. Young and at least one other person conspired to produce t-shirts bearing Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Photograph, both fraudulently and criminally claiming ownership of the copyright on the t-shirts. In addition, Mr. Young had approximately 250 vinyl banners bearing the Copyrighted Photograph printed and sold. 15. In 2006, the Plaintiff, d/b/a Big League Photos, filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court for breach of contract and other counts against Mr. Young and other parties. The Plaintiff successfully obtained monetary judgments against all the parties in 2008, specifically in the amount of $1.125 million against Mr. Young. The Plaintiff also 26 5 Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 6 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 was successful in 2012 in opposing Mr. Young’s attempt to discharge that monetary judgment in bankruptcy, which matter was pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona, in Phoenix. 16. But aside from the civil judgment against him, Mr. Young’s conduct was so blatant, deliberate and pernicious as to constitute state and federal crimes, including but not limited to, criminal copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 506(a) (“Any person who infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain” shall be punished as provided in §18 U.S.C. § 2319). In fact, the pernicious nature of Mr. Young’s conduct perfectly illustrates the very reason the criminal copyright statute was drafted and enacted. 17. As soon as the Plaintiff learned about Mr. Young’s criminal activities in 2002, the Plaintiff began contacting Arizona law enforcement authorities, and contacted Defendant MCSO and Defendant Arpaio for the first time in 2003. Plaintiff informed the Defendants of his contractual relationship with Mr. Young and Mr. Young’s violation of that Agreement, as well as Mr. Young’s criminal conduct in falsely claiming ownership of Plaintiff’s business and producing and selling the counterfeit Copyrighted Posters. Despite the Plaintiff having contacted Defendant MCSO on many occasions since 2003, having spoken with MCSO sheriff deputies and others, informing them of Mr. Young’s civil and criminal activities in derogation of his intellectual property rights, the Defendants refused to arrest Mr. Young or to even investigate the matter. Instead, the Defendants permitted Mr. Young’s criminal activities to continue unabated; indeed, on information and belief, such criminal activities continue through the present time. 18. As stated above, the Plaintiff successfully opposed Mr. Young’s attempt to have the civil judgment against him discharged in 2012. On information and belief, at some point during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings and after the Plaintiff continued 26 6 Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 7 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to inform the Defendants of Mr. Young’s criminal activities against him, Defendant Arpaio and Mr. Young met and discussed Plaintiff’s charges against Mr. Young. Plaintiff’s best estimation is that such a meeting occurred in early 2012. On information and belief, Mr. Young and Defendant Arpaio agreed that Mr. Young would donate 3,000 copies of the counterfeit Copyrighted Posters to the MCSO in exchange for Defendant Arpaio’s continuing to refrain from arresting Mr. Young for his state and federal criminal conduct against the Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s belief in this regard is partially based on the photograph of Mr. Young and Defendant Arpaio, attached hereto as Ex. C, in which the two men are holding a copy of one of the counterfeit Copyrighted Posters. The photograph includes false language running across the top, on information and belief, created by Mr. Young, and states, in all caps and bold: “RAY AND SHERIFF JOE POSE FOR RAYS DONATION OF 3000 POSTERS TO MARICOPA COUNTY SHERRIFS OFFICE. LIMITED EDITION PRINT OF THE 911 TRIBUTE AT DIAMONDBACK STADIUM THAT RAY OWNED THE COPYRIGHT”. 19. In December 2012, Plaintiff learned that the Defendants were selling the counterfeit Copyrighted Posters that were donated to them by Mr. Young at Phoenix-based auctions and possibly other places. On information and belief, the Defendants have already sold all of the 3,000 donated counterfeit Copyrighted Posters. On information and belief, Defendants’ actions have substantially contributed to the Plaintiff’s injury over the past several years, including the Plaintiff’s having been homeless in the Phoenix area and in the Pasadena, California area for approximately four (4) years. 20. On the afternoon of January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff had a chance meeting with Defendant Arpaio on a downtown Phoenix street. The two men spoke for approximately fifteen (15) minutes. They discussed the fact that Defendant Arpaio had obtained the 3,000 counterfeit Copyrighted Posters from Mr. Young and Defendant Arpaio admitted to having 26 7 Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 8 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 sold the counterfeit Copyrighted Posters. Defendant Arpaio also specifically recalled knowing that the Plaintiff had contacted his office and had spoken with his deputies and his secretary about the criminal activity perpetrated against him by Mr. Young. Having acknowledged those transgressions against the Plaintiff, Defendant Arpaio promised the Plaintiff that he would “make it up to you somehow.” 21. By making such a promise, Defendant Arpaio evinced personal responsibility to the defendant beyond his responsibility as the Sheriff of Maricopa County. Furthermore, Defendant Arpaio’s conduct in cutting a deal to have a known criminal, Mr. Young, donate 3,000 copies of the counterfeit Copyrighted Posters to the MCSO in exchange for Defendant Arpaio’s continuing to refrain from arresting Mr. Young for his criminal conduct against the Plaintiff, exhibited conduct so beyond the scope and pale of his responsibilities as the chief county law enforcement officer as to require him to take personal responsibility for his egregious actions. 22. On November 21, 2014, one of the deputies of Defendant MCSO admitted to the Plaintiff that the Defendants had sold framed copies of the counterfeit Copyrighted Posters at their charity auctions, and that the Defendants had made money from the sales. Plaintiff reasonably believes the deputy’s admission indicated that such sales were very recent to the time period of November 21, 2014. 23. The Plaintiff has attempted on numerous occasions over the past twelve (12) years to get justice from the Defendants, including as recently as 2012 through August 2015. These attempts have included many communications with the MCSO, including attempts to obtain relevant information through the Federal and State of Arizona Freedom of Information Acts, attempts to obtain compensation without resorting to formal legal process, and, as discussed above, attempts to have Mr. Young arrested and his criminal activities against the Plaintiff curtailed. Plaintiff’s attempts have been rebuffed and 26 8 Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 9 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 thwarted at every turn by the Defendants, despite Defendant Arpaio’s admissions of liability. Plaintiff’s attempts to obtain justice from the Defendants have put the Defendants on consistent notice of Plaintiff’s intent to seek compensation for their wrongful acts and thus the Defendants are under no unfair prejudice in being forced to defend against this lawsuit. 24. above, by Defendant Arpaio, at all other relevant times that Defendant Arpaio and other employees of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office were engaging in the offending conduct complained of herein, including but not limited to, the sales of the counterfeit Copyrighted Posters, they were acting within the scope of their responsibilities as agents of Defendant MCSO. III. 13 (Copyright Infringement – 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501, 504, 505 and 506 ) 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES COUNT I 14 16 Except with respect to the individual conduct complained of in Paragraph 21, (Against Both Defendants) 25. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24, inclusive. 26. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff has been the creator and owner of the photographic work, entitled, “Remembering September 11th, 2001.” 27. For the photographic work at issue in this matter, Plaintiff holds a copyright registration certificate from the United States Copyright Office – Reg. No. VA0001175518. 28. Without authorization, the Defendants distributed and sold Plaintiff’s federally registered copyrighted photographic work. 29. The Defendants’ conduct in unlawfully distributing and selling the Plaintiff’s federally registered copyrighted work was willful, wanton and malicious, in that the 26 9 Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 10 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Defendants knew their conduct constituted copyright infringement and they proceeded to engage in the conduct anyway. 30. for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501. Plaintiff has suffered substantial financial losses as a result of the Defendants’ conduct. 31. Alternatively, Plaintiff is entitled to statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c). 32. 22 23 24 In addition, because Defendants’ infringement was willful, the award of statutory damages should be enhanced in accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2). 33. Plaintiff is also entitled to recover his attorney’s fees and costs of suit pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. 34. Based on Plaintiff’s reasonable belief that the admission by the MCSO deputy on November 21, 2014, that the Defendants had sold framed copies of the counterfeit Copyrighted Posters at their charity auctions, indicated that such sales had taken place recently from the date of such admission, Defendants’ infringing conduct as claimed herein fall within the three-year statute of limitations for copyright infringement. JURY DEMAND 35. 20 21 Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages, which includes his losses and any and all profits Defendants have made as a result of their wrongful conduct. 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). 18 19 As a result of their wrongful conduct, the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in this case. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David E. Kelly respectfully requests judgment as follows: (1) That the Court enter a judgment against Defendants that they have: a. Willfully infringed Plaintiff’s rights in a federally registered copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 501; 25 26 10 Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/18/15 Page 11 of 11 1 b. Caused financial harm to the Plaintiff through the act of infringement 2 3 complained of above. (2) 4 statutory damages as follows: 5 a. Plaintiff’s damages and Defendants’ profits pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 6 504(b), or, in the alternative, enhanced statutory damages pursuant to 17 7 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2), for Defendants’ willful infringement of Plaintiff’s 8 9 copyright; (3) 10 13 That the Court order Defendants to pay Plaintiff both the costs of this action and the reasonable attorney’s fees he incurred in prosecuting this action 11 12 That the Court order Defendants to pay Plaintiff’s general, special, actual and pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504. (4) That the Court grant to Plaintiff such other and additional relief as is just and proper. 14 15 DATED: December 17, 2015 Respectfully submitted, 16 /s/LaShawn D. Jenkins LaShawn D. Jenkins Jenkins Law Firm 4020 N. 20th St., Suite 100 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 17 18 19 20 Manotti L. Jenkins Law Offices of Manotti L. Jenkins, LTD. 655 West Irving Park Road, Suite 306 Chicago, Illinois 60615 [Pro Hac Vice Application to be Filed] 21 22 23 Attorneys for Plaintiff David E. Kelly 24 25 26 11 .. .. Ea-mimn- nr? l?-wlrl In Eriamm?hwb. a Skim Ins-in an Case Document 1-2 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 1 CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION VA For a Work otme Visual This Certi?cate issued undet the seal of the Copyright STATES OFHCE Of?ce in accordance with title 17, United States Code, attests that registration has been made for the work identified Registration Number below.T he information on this certi?cate has been made a ri?ili?li'i part of the Copyright Office records. Ettecl'we RE OF COPYRIGHTS f? . United States of America - - 4.. Appliance Received m? summit-easy Ami 30. 2-392 98905! Received Two I.) WE OR Pm IN BLACK INK. to NOT WRITE ABOVE 1H8 UNE. 'I'itleofThisWon-k: :7 1 1? . - R?mem?of/nc] 6/3721? 5.0" 2 Alternative title or ?lie of larger work in which this. work was published: NameandAddressof f} (gt/l ., w, p/ pg Joel #351 a Author and Owner Copyright: I I magi/u I ?42? 3'51?! 7" a/ We) arr?m3 Natlona?ty or dmrieilo: Phone 3 3 Fax Phone. fax. and email: Email Cm Year of Creation: lfwork hasbeenpumm 4 3- M5 7? 552? Js?w $1191? {Mam}: a . Date and Nation of ?mm Year ?nag? Publication: [0 5' 3 . ll Type of Authorship 5 3-Dimensional sculpture Mhotagraph C3 Map f- in This Work: CI 2?Dimensional artwork Cl Jewel desi 3 Text all ?-lal this aulhorcrcatcd. drawing . . - I . A- - . Signat 6 I sent? that the Slammer": made by m? In this applicant?; 3m coma m- acs: of my :hcck mother Cl Authorized Zen: a Re istratlo I cannot coglpleled Iwithout a gigltalm'c. Name and Address of ?Chedt here if same as l2 above. Person to Contact for 3- Rights and Permissions: . Phone. fax. and email: Hume Fax Email inDeposit Account A.-- .. .. flab eggs .: .. . .. . .. .. a agree 1L. 5- 2 .. . I'th Iogr Vl?ljli'z 911? . o'Wis?c' inf- I - 03/22/2012 AND SHERHJF FUSE FUR PLATE DUMATIUN UF TU CU SH E??lf? E. . EDTIDN PR 1'11"! TRIBUTE AT DIAMUMDHA STA 0.. Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/18/15 Page 1 of 2 JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS DAVID E. KELLY THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE and SHERIFF JOE ARPAIO, individually; and DOES 1 through XX, (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Maricopa (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) NOTE: Maricopa (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. Attorneys (If Known) (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) LaShawn D. Jenkins (021840) JENKINS LAW FIRM 4020 North 20th Street, Suite 100, Phoenix, AZ 85016 (602) 283-9868 II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 1 U.S. Government Plaintiff ’ 3 Federal Question (U.S. Government Not a Party) ’ 2 U.S. Government Defendant ’ 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State ’ 1 DEF ’ 1 and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 of Business In This State Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place of Business In Another State ’ 5 ’ 5 Citizen or Subject of a Foreign Country ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) CONTRACT ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ TORTS 110 Insurance 120 Marine 130 Miller Act 140 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment & Enforcement of Judgment 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ PERSONAL INJURY 310 Airplane 315 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers’ Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury 362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice CIVIL RIGHTS 440 Other Civil Rights 441 Voting 442 Employment 443 Housing/ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment 446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other 448 Education FORFEITURE/PENALTY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 380 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 385 Property Damage Product Liability PRISONER PETITIONS Habeas Corpus: ’ 463 Alien Detainee ’ 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence ’ 530 General ’ 535 Death Penalty Other: ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 550 Civil Rights ’ 555 Prison Condition ’ 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 690 Other BANKRUPTCY ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 830 Patent ’ 840 Trademark ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ LABOR 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 720 Labor/Management Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ SOCIAL SECURITY 861 HIA (1395ff) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff or Defendant) ’ 871 IRS—Third Party 26 USC 7609 OTHER STATUTES ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ 375 False Claims Act 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deportation 470 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securities/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom of Information Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes IMMIGRATION ’ 462 Naturalization Application ’ 465 Other Immigration Actions V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only) ’ 1 Original Proceeding ’ 2 Removed from State Court ’ 3 Remanded from Appellate Court ’ 4 Reinstated or Reopened ’ 5 Transferred from Another District (specify) ’ 6 Multidistrict Litigation Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 17 USC §§ 106, 501, 504, 505, 506 VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: Copyright Infringement ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): IF ANY JUDGE DATE CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: ’ Yes ’ No JURY DEMAND: DEMAND $ DOCKET NUMBER SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT Print APPLYING IFP Save As... JUDGE MAG. JUDGE Reset JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12) Case 2:15-cv-02572-GMS Document 1-4 Filed 12/18/15 Page 2 of 2 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I.(a) (b) (c) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)". II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.