Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 1 of 18 Michael Fuller, OSB No. 09357 Lead Attorney for Plaintiff Olsen Daines PC US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, Oregon 97204 michael@underdoglawyer.com Direct 503-201-4570 Mark Geragos, Pro Hac Pending Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Geragos & Geragos Historic Engine Co. No. 28 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 geragos@geragos.com Phone 213-625-3900 (additional counsel on signature page) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION ZACK BARTEL, an Oregon consumer, individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiff, v. SHOWTIME NETWORKS, INC., Defendant. COMPLAINT – Page 1 of 18 Case No. 3:17-cv-1331 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION COMPLAINT Unlawful Trade Practices Unjust Enrichment 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Demand for Jury Trial Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 2 of 18 1. THE PARTIES Defendant Showtime Networks, Inc. is a Delaware corporation. In the regular course of its business, defendant advertised that consumers could pay $99.99 to “witness history” by streaming the Mayweather vs. McGregor fight live on its app, Showtime PPV. Specifically, defendant advertised that its system could stream the fight live in HD on its app starting at 6:00 pm PST on August 26, 2017. 2. Plaintiff Zack Bartel is an individual consumer residing in Portland, Oregon. Like thousands of other fight fans across the country, plaintiff paid defendant $99.99 to stream the Mayweather fight live on its app in HD, as defendant’s advertisement promised. 3. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because the bulk of defendant’s Mayweather fight advertising and sales in Oregon took place in the Portland metro area. This complaint’s allegations are based on personal knowledge as to plaintiff’s conduct and made on information and belief as to the acts of others. COMPLAINT – Page 2 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 3 of 18 4. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS On August 25, 2017, in response to defendant’s advertisement and representation that its system would stream the Mayweather fight at 1080p resolution and at 60 frames per second, plaintiff paid defendant $99.99. Plaintiff’s receipt is shown below: COMPLAINT – Page 3 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 4 of 18 5. On August 26, 2017 at 6pm PST, like thousands of other fight fans across the county, plaintiff turned on defendant’s app in anticipation to watch the Mayweather fight. To his extreme disappointment and frustration, plaintiff (and thousands of other consumers) quickly learned that defendant’s system was defective and unable to stream the Mayweather fight in HD as defendant had advertised. Instead of being a “witness to history” as defendant had promised, the only thing plaintiff witnessed was grainy video, error screens, buffer events, and stalls. The screenshots below show the quality of video plaintiff saw while he should have been watching the Mayweather fight on defendant’s system in HD: COMPLAINT – Page 4 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 5 of 18 COMPLAINT Page 5 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 6 of 18 6. Plaintiff was using up-to-date, top-of-the-line software and hardware, just as defendant required, including a 4th generation Apple TV. At the same time defendant’s system was unable to stream the Mayweather fight in HD, plaintiff was able to watch other streaming services on YouTube and Netflix in crystal clear HD, as usual. Plaintiff took a speed test of his Internet just to make sure the issues weren’t being caused by a bad connection. Plaintiff’s speed test results below showed the issues were entirely due to defendant’s defective system: 7. When plaintiff turned to Twitter, he saw hundreds of complaints being tweeted by defendant’s other app customers in real time during the Mayweather fight experiencing the same issue with defendant’s defective service: COMPLAINT – Page 6 of 18 .- 8? 9 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 7 of 18 Joe McCann 0 @joemccann . 43m The @3qu app across multiple devices (Roku. iPhone, etc.) are all down. Same with @Showtime's app Streaming is hard 2 2 3 i3 NICK @nickgrodo - 4m UFC TV. Showtime app and I'm sure many more apps are down right now. Of course they didn't have enough sewers in place for the PPV buys Q) I Rose Porti @astun?asptr 4m Replying to @MDBaStein @stlyanno If you bought it at showtime PPV it should not go down. Other places yes but not directly with Showtime PPV. Download app and request refund 9. Garrett Gustafson @Garretti 209 - 4m Replying to @GermanV52 Yea apparently showtime and the Ufc tv app and fight pass are all down Iol. Her comes a lawsuit R) Anne Phan @AnneP - 6m Replying to @AnneP @UFCFightPass @UFCFightPass Please just help me process a refund at this point. Your app has been down for 1+ hour. I've now bought off Showtime i; 8 Kevin Sumear, DDC @Surneari??rt - 22m Replying to ?qu @UFCFightPass Even the entire showtime app is down. This is REALLY PISSING ME OFF 1 2 hydro-sen. @hydrocyamic - 23m showtime app down at Q) i r3 Theresa Arnold @T_Dawgie - 26m Replying to @vinierloki40 @TayTarantello @UFCFightPass @showtime app still down for me Glenn hansen @Cyclonei 13 - 29m @Showtime app on Apple TV is down T. COMPLAINT Page 7 of 18 so? Theresa Arnold Dawgie - 29m Replying to @SurnearFit and 3 others @Showtime app is still down for me I. 1 2 (2 Ace @AceOFspadesSOSO - 37m @utc is the showtime app working or is it both the ufc and showtime apps that are down? #McGregoerMayweather (L) If; 1 8? Christian C-Easby @cceasby - 39m @Showtime why is the app ?v 1 Cool Rabbit Dad - 40m So has this boxing thing even happened yet? The showtime app on roku is down Q1 IKI Jon Shideler @JonShideler 45m UFC app and Showtime down!? Even Dicky is pissed off. #2017probs Dick Vitale 0 @Dickiev We in panic mode I Waited all day for PAY PER VIEW OF FIGHT not getting it we can't get anyone on the phone 2 2 l3 Tyler . 56m Replying to @Firas Zahabi Yes it's down. showtime app CL) 1 t; Taylor @xTaylorDenise - 1h I'm trying to use this Showtime 7 day free trial to watch the Whitney movie but the fight has the app down. C) 1 1 RI rocket shrimp @notrobzombie - 1h didn't have any strong feelings about the fight tonight until i realized it's the reason the Showtime app is down rn T. 1 Wesley Windham @wesleywindham - 1h showtime app is down. ufc app is never thought I'd say this but i wish I had gone to bdubs 1.1 1 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 8 of 18 8. Defendant’s advertisement in iTunes below, which every consumer who purchased defendant’s streaming app service saw, represented that consumers could witness history through live streaming access to the most anticipated sporting event of the year. 9. As it turned out, defendant knew and should have known that its system was defective and would not be able to confirm to defendant’s promise of live HD streaming video at 1080p resolution and at 60 frames per second. COMPLAINT – Page 8 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 9 of 18 10. Unlike past big events like Mayweather vs. Pacquiao in 2015, the Mayweather vs. McGregor event on August 26, 2017 was the first major fight available on pay-per-view without a cable subscription. 11. In hopes of maximizing profits, defendant rushed its pay-perview streaming service to market, without securing enough networking bandwidth to support the number of subscribers who paid to watch the fight. Defendant’s app used HLS (HTTP Live Streaming), which is a VBR (variable bitrate) video delivery protocol. With VBR video, it’s possible to perform a bitrate “upshift” or “downshift” based on how much network bandwidth is available to the video player. Video players that support HLS and other VBR formats (DASH, MSS Microsoft Smooth Streaming, etc.) detect when video segments are not downloading fast enough and perform a downshift by downloading a lower bitrate version of the video file. Conversely, if the video player knows it’s downloading the video file fast enough, it can perform an upshift, and start downloading the higher resolution version of the video files. Defendant knew and should have known its system wasn’t able to conform to the qualify defendant promised its customers, based on defendant’s available bandwidth and subscriber numbers. Instead of being upfront with consumers about its new, untested, underpowered COMPLAINT – Page 9 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY service, defendant Document 1 caused Filed 08/26/17 likelihood of Page 10 of 18 confusion and misunderstanding as to the source and quality of the HD video consumers would see on fight night. Defendant intentionally misrepresented the quality and grade of video consumers would see using its app, and knowingly failed to disclose that its system was defective with respect to the amount of bandwidth available, and that defendant’s service would materially fail to conform to the quality of HD video defendant promised. 12. CLASS ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff files this complaint as a national class action lawsuit. The Oregon class consists of Oregon consumers who: a) Viewed defendant’s app advertisement on iTunes, then paid $99.99 to stream the Mayweather vs. McGregor fight live on defendant’s app, Showtime PPV, and b) Who were unable to view the Mayweather vs. McGregor fight live on defendant’s app in HD at 1080p resolution and at 60 frames per second, and who experienced ongoing grainy video, error screens, buffer events, and stalls instead. COMPLAINT – Page 10 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 11 of 18 13. Excluded from the class are all attorneys for the class, officers and members of defendant, including officers and members of any entity with an ownership interest in defendant, any judge who sits on the case, and all jurors and alternate jurors who sit on the case. 14. The exact number of aggrieved consumers in Oregon can be determined based on defendant’s sales records and data. 15. Every aggrieved Oregon consumer misled by defendant’s advertisement as alleged in this complaint suffered an actual ascertainable loss of the $99.99 they paid to stream the Mayweather fight live in HD as advertised. But for defendant’s false representations as alleged in this complaint and its failure to disclose known defects and nonconformities in its system and service, plaintiff and the members of the putative class would not have paid defendant any money and would have instead have viewed the Mayweather fight through a different service. 16. Defendant’s behavior as alleged in this complaint willfully violated the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act (“UTPA”), including COMPLAINT – Page 11 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 12 of 18 ORS 646.608(1)(b), (e), (g), (i), and (t). This UTPA violation is common to the Oregon class. 17. The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. Upon information and belief, the Oregon class alone includes thousands of members, based on the historic nature of the fight and the recordbreaking demand to watch it. 18. Common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. Common questions include whether plaintiff and the Oregon class members are entitled to equitable relief, whether defendant acted willfully, recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally, whether plaintiff and the Oregon class members are entitled to recover actual damages or statutory damages or punitive damages from defendant, and whether plaintiff and the Oregon class are entitled to recover fees and costs for defendant’s UTPA violation. 19. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Oregon class because each was misled by defendant’s false representations and failures to disclose, the injuries suffered by plaintiff and the Oregon class members are identical ($99.99), and plaintiff’s claim for relief is COMPLAINT – Page 12 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 13 of 18 based upon the same legal theories as are the claims of the other class members. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the class because his claim is typical of the claims of the Oregon class, he is represented by nationally known and locally respected attorneys who have experience handling class action litigation and consumer protection cases who are qualified and competent, and who will vigorously prosecute this litigation, and their interests are not antagonistic or in conflict with the interests of the Oregon class. 20. A class action is superior to other methods for fair and efficient adjudication of this case because common questions of law and fact predominate over other factors affecting only individual members, as far as plaintiff knows, no class action that purports to include Oregon customers suffering the same injury has been commenced in Oregon, individual class members have little interest in controlling the litigation, due to the high cost of actions, the relatively small amounts of damages, and because plaintiff and his attorneys will vigorously pursue the claims. The forum is desirable because the bulk of defendant’s sales in Oregon took place in the Portland metro area. A class action will be an efficient method of adjudicating the claims of the class members who have suffered relatively small damages, as a result COMPLAINT – Page 13 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 14 of 18 of the same conduct by defendant. In the aggregate, class members have claims for relief that are significant in scope relative to the expense of litigation. The availability of defendant’s sales records and data will facilitate proof of class claims, processing class claims, and distributions of any recoveries. COMPLAINT – Page 14 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 15 of 18 21. OREGON CLASS CLAIMS FOR RELIEF – Claim 1 – VIOLATION OF ORS 646.608 Defendant willfully, recklessly, knowingly and intentionally violated ORS 646.608 as alleged above, causing plaintiff and the Oregon class ascertainable losses. 22. Plaintiff and the Oregon class are entitled to equitable relief in the form of an accounting, restitution, and unless agreed upon by defendant, an order to preserve all documents and information (and electronically stored information) pertaining to this case. Plaintiff and the Oregon class are entitled to recover actual damages or $200 statutory damages, whichever is greater, interest and fees and costs under ORS 646.638. Defendant’s violation of the UTPA as alleged above was reckless, in pursuit of profit, and constituted a wanton, outrageous and oppressive violation of the right of Oregon consumers to be free from unlawful trade practices. Plaintiff and the Oregon class are entitled to recover punitive damages under ORS 646.638. COMPLAINT – Page 15 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 16 of 18 23. – Claim 2 – UNJUST ENRICHMENT As a matter of justice and equity, defendant should not be able to retain the pay-per-view fees it charged plaintiff and the Oregon class for live HD streaming services that were never provided or received. Plaintiff and the Oregon class are entitled to restitution based on defendant’s unjust enrichment as alleged in this complaint. 24. Demand for jury trial. COMPLAINT – Page 16 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 17 of 18 PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff seeks relief for himself and the proposed Oregon class as follows: A. Unless agreed upon by defendant, an order to preserve all documents and information (and electronically stored information) pertaining to this case, B. An order certifying this matter as a class action, C. Judgment against defendant for actual, statutory, and punitive damages, interest, and reimbursement of fees and costs, D. And other relief the Court deems necessary. August 26, 2017 RESPECTFULLY FILED, s/ Michael Fuller Michael Fuller, OSB No. 09357 Lead Attorney for Plaintiff Olsen Daines PC US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, Oregon 97204 michael@underdoglawyer.com Direct 503-201-4570 (additional counsel information on next page) COMPLAINT – Page 17 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 18 of 18 Rex Daines, OSB No. 952442 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Olsen Daines PC US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, Oregon 97204 rdaines@olsendaines.com Phone 503-362-9393 Ben Meiselas, Pro Hac Pending Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Geragos & Geragos Historic Engine Co. No. 28 644 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90017 meiselas@geragos.com Phone 213-625-3900 Robert Le, OSB No. 094167 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff rl@robertlelaw.com Kelly Jones, OSB No. 074217 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff kellydonovanjones@gmail.com PROOF OF MAILING Under ORS 646.638(2), I declare and certify that on the date below I caused a copy of this complaint to be mailed to the Oregon Attorney General at the following address: Ellen Rosenblum Oregon Attorney General Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 97301-4096 August 26, 2017 s/ Michael Fuller Michael Fuller, OSB No. 09357 Lead Attorney for Plaintiff Olsen Daines PC US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, Oregon 97204 michael@underdoglawyer.com Direct 503-201-4570 COMPLAINT – Page 18 of 18 Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1-1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 1 of 1 CIVIL COVER SHEET JS 44 (Rev. 09/11) 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 ZACK BARTEL SHOWTIME NETWORKS, INC. (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Multnomah County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. NOTE: (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) Michael Fuller, US Bancorp Tower, 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, Oregon 97204, 503-201-4570 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) IV. NATURE OF SUIT CONTRACT ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ 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 (Excl. Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran’s Benefits 160 Stockholders’ Suits 190 Other Contract 195 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ V. ORIGIN ’ 1 Original Proceeding (For Diversity Cases Only) PTF Citizen of This State ’ 1 DEF ’ 1 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 (Place an “X” in One Box Only) TORTS ’ REAL PROPERTY 210 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Torts to Land 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff) 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 Med. 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 ’ 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence Habeas Corpus: ’ 530 General ’ 535 Death Penalty ’ 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 and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4 of Business In This State 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/Mgmt. Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. 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 ’ 463 Habeas Corpus Alien Detainee (Prisoner Petition) ’ 465 Other Immigration Actions (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Transferred from ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 another district ’ 6 Multidistrict State Court Appellate Court Reopened Litigation (specify) Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): 28 U.S.C. § 1332 VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause: Unlawful Trade Practices ✔ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION ’ VII. REQUESTED IN UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions): JUDGE IF ANY DATE CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: ’ Yes ’ No JURY DEMAND: DEMAND $ DOCKET NUMBER SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD s/ Michael Fuller 08/26/2017 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE Case 3:17-cv-01331-YY Document 1-2 Filed 08/26/17 Page 1 of 1 AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District __________ DistrictofofOregon __________ ZACK BARTEL Plaintiff v. SHOWTIME NETWORKS, INC. Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-1331 SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To: (Defendant’s name and address) Showtime Networks, Inc. c/o registered agent US Corporation Company 251 Little Falls Drive Wilmington, DE 19808 A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Zack Bartel c/o attorney Michael Fuller US Bancorp Tower 111 SW 5th Ave., Suite 3150 Portland, Oregon 97204 If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court. CLERK OF COURT Date: Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk