FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO DISH NETWORK L.L.C., JURY ... · the rights to distribute programming. As of March 31, 2016, DISH had approximately 13.874 million pay-TV subscribers.1

09617.006 3467917v4 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No.

DISH NETWORK L.L.C., a Colorado limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRIBUNE BROADCASTING COMPANY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT AND PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE

Plaintiff DISH Network L.L.C. (“DISH”), by its undersigned counsel, files this

Complaint for Interference with Contract and Prospective Economic Advantage and alleges

against Tribune Broadcasting Company, LLC (“Tribune”) as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. DISH provides satellite television programming services to subscribers

throughout the United States through contracts called subscriber agreements. DISH generally

does not own the television programming that it distributes to its subscribers but instead licenses

the rights to distribute programming. As of March 31, 2016, DISH had approximately

13.874 million pay-TV subscribers.1

1 This figure includes subscribers to DISH’s Sling TV and Sling International services, which provide television programming via the Internet.

Case 1:16-cv-01548 Document 1 Filed 06/20/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 14

10188.004 3397788v4 2

2. Tribune owns or operates 42 local television stations, reaching more than 50

million households, making it one of the largest independent station groups in the United States,

with affiliates representing all of the major over-the-air networks (CBS, ABC, FOX, NBC and

the CW), including stations such as KDVR Fox 31 Denver and KWGN CW2 Colorado, as well

as Chicago “superstation” WGN (the “Tribune Programming”). Tribune, as a content producer,

is not a competitor with DISH. DISH instead competes with other television service providers

like DirectTV and Comcast.

3. DISH, through now-expired contractual agreements with Tribune, had the right to

distribute Tribune Programming to its subscribers throughout the country. Once DISH’s

contracts with Tribune expired on June 12, 2016, DISH lost the right to distribute – and no

longer distributes – Tribune Programming.

4. As the expiration date of the DISH-Tribune contracts approached, DISH and

Tribune engaged in a lengthy negotiation over a possible new agreement. The negotiation was

unsuccessful. In a last-ditch bid to force DISH to accept its terms, Tribune created and

broadcast, via its channels and various websites, false, deceptive and defamatory content

regarding DISH, its services and its performance. Indeed, the entire campaign launched by

Tribune on these websites and commercials is deceptive – Tribune cannot actually believe the

truth of any of the extremely negative statements it makes about DISH’s performance because it

repeatedly states that its true intent is to force DISH into a long-term renewal of the

DISH-Tribune distribution agreements. In other words, because Tribune clearly intends for its

campaign – including through intentionally inflicting economic harm – to force DISH to once

again become its partner and renew its agreement to distribute Tribune Programming, Tribune’s


09617.006 3467917v4 3

disparaging and defamatory comments about DISH cannot reflect an honestly-held belief or be

made in good faith.

5. The websites created and controlled by Tribune, for example

www.dumpdish.com/kdvr and www.dumpdish.com/kwgn, have domain names that include the

phrase “dump dish,” inviting DISH’s customers to terminate their customer agreements with

DISH. Tribune’s publication of the misleading and deceptive statements on its channels and

these websites causes actual harm to DISH. Among other things, DISH’s subscribers flood

DISH’s customer service lines with questions about the Tribune messages, some subscribers

cancel their DISH subscriptions, and DISH’s goodwill as a reliable service provider is eroded.

Tribune is therefore deliberately and purposefully interfering with DISH’s contracts with its

subscribers as well as with DISH’s prospective economic advantage, both through current

subscribers who terminate their agreement with DISH and through prospective subscribers who

elect not to sign up for DISH services. Tribune’s interference with DISH’s contracts with its

customers is not capable of being cured because, among other reasons, once a customer changes

service providers, DISH cannot get them back. DISH has incurred and will continue to incur

substantial damages as a result of these deceptive messages.

PARTIES

6. DISH is a Colorado limited liability company with its principal place of business

in Englewood, Colorado. DISH’s sole member is DISH DBS Corporation, a Colorado

corporation with its principal place of business in Englewood, Colorado.

7. DISH is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Tribune is a Delaware

limited liability company with its principal place of business in Chicago. The sole member of

Tribune is Tribune Company, which is a Delaware corporation and has its principal place of

business in Chicago.


10188.004 3397788v4 4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. The Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), because the parties are

citizens of different states and because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), venue is proper in this Court because a

substantial portion of the operative events giving rise to the complaint occurred in Colorado.

Tribune’s actions were intentional; they targeted DISH, a company resident in Colorado, and

thus the brunt of DISH’s injury will be felt in Colorado; and Tribune used at least one of its

television stations operating in Colorado to broadcast some of its deceptive and illegal

commercials.

10. This Court therefore has personal jurisdiction over Tribune because Tribune has

purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business activities and transactions in

Colorado, and this Complaint arises out of and relates to those activities and transactions.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

11. DISH and Tribune were parties to a Retransmission Consent Agreement, effective

as of June 13, 2013, which expired on June 12, 2016. The Retransmission Consent Agreement

(“Retransmission Agreement”) governed DISH’s distribution of certain Tribune owned and

operated broadcast network stations. DISH was also a party to a separate distribution agreement

with Tower Distribution Company LLC, a Tribune company, entitled the Superstation WGN

Distribution Agreement and a related Term Sheet (the “WGN Agreement”). Pursuant to the

WGN Agreement, DISH distributed via satellite the Tribune Superstation now known as the

WGN Cable Network. The WGN Agreement, like the Retransmission Agreement, also expired

on June 12, 2016.

12. DISH and Tribune began negotiating a possible renewal of the Retransmission

Agreement in May 2016. Simultaneously, DISH and Tribune began negotiating a renewal of the


09617.006 3467917v4 5

WGN Agreement. DISH is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Tribune is the sole

member of Tower Distribution Company LLC and that Tribune has controlled and continues to

control all aspects of the negotiation related to a renewal of the WGN Agreement, as well as the

Retransmission Agreement. The parties exchanged several proposals to renew both agreements

over the next few weeks, with little success. The primary sticking point in the negotiation was

Tribune’s insistence that DISH agree to pay 2.4 times what DISH currently paid to Tribune for

the right to retransmit the various broadcast network affiliates.

13. DISH delivered multiple proposals to Tribune for a renewal of the Retransmission

Agreement and also offered Tribune several short-term extensions so the parties could continue

negotiating. Instead of agreeing to a short-term extension, Tribune created and distributed

content disparaging DISH through Tribune’s owned and operated broadcast channels and a series

of websites that, on information and belief, Tribune created specifically as a negotiation tactic in

an attempt to force DISH to accept Tribune’s terms.

14. The websites created by Tribune inform DISH subscribers that they are about to

lose access to Tribune Programming and – now that DISH can no longer retransmit Tribune

Programming – that “DISH forced” the local Tribune channel off of the subscribers’ channel

lineup. They embed 30-second long video advertisements as well as links to send DISH

messages demanding that DISH keep or restore Tribune Programming, a list of shows DISH

subscribers will miss, and frequently asked questions designed to pressure DISH by calling on its

subscribers to flood DISH with complaints and/or drop DISH’s service altogether. The websites

explicitly state that DISH subscribers have two options for continuing to receive Tribune

Programming: “Our broadcasts are available over the air, via antenna. Or, and perhaps better,

we encourage you to switch to an alternative pay-TV provider; many offer excellent incentives to


10188.004 3397788v4 6

switch.” Below is a screenshot from the website, which is available at

www.dumpdish.com/wgn9.php:

15. The content featured on these websites and the Tribune’s broadcast commercials

about its negotiation with DISH is not just a heavy-handed negotiation tactic – the websites and

commercials contain false, misleading, deceptive and unfair statements. To take one example,

each website features the statement that “Customers give Dish the lowest rating for value,”

allegedly based on an unidentified “Leading Consumer Survey in 2015.” The clear impression

left on any reader by this statement is that a “leading consumer survey” had found that DISH had

“the lowest rating for value” of any television service provider – in other words, relative to other

providers, DISH was the worst in terms of value. Below is a screenshot from the website

featuring this statement:


09617.006 3467917v4 7

16. The embedded video commercial running on each website doubles-down on this

deceptive and misleading statement. The commercial repeats this same statement audibly (“No

wonder Dish gets the worst rating for value”), but also displays text stating only “Worst rating by

customers." Tribune again attributes these statements to the same “Leading Consumer Survey”

from 2015. The clear implication of these statements is to suggest to DISH subscribers that,

relative to other television providers, DISH is ranked dead last. Below is a screenshot from the

commercial featuring this statement, which is available on the same website:


10188.004 3397788v4 8

17. These statements are misleading and deceptive. On information and belief,

Tribune based the statement on a survey published in 2015 by Consumer Reports. DISH actually

ranks near the top of that survey relative to other television service providers – DISH is graded

in the top five of twenty-four television providers included in the survey. DISH is, in fact,

graded higher than virtually all of the other well-known distributors, including AT&T, Cox,

Cablevision, Charter, Comcast/Xfinity and Time Warner. Survey participants apparently did

give DISH’s “value” the lowest or “worse” grade available, but they gave the same grade to

twenty of the twenty-four providers included in the survey.2 Of course, the value that customers

2 The 2015 survey is no anomaly. Consumer Reports just released its latest survey on June 15, 2016, and DISH is tied for the fifth-highest rated television provider out of the thirty providers ranked in the survey, outpacing virtually every other well-known provider in the industry. DISH (footnote continued)


09617.006 3467917v4 9

receive is directly correlated with the prices that content providers, such as Tribune, charge

distributors for their programming. The statement that “Customers gave DISH the lowest rating

for value” is misleading, and specifically designed by Tribune to encourage DISH subscribers to

terminate their contract with DISH and choose any of the other, purportedly higher-ranked

providers. Similarly, the statements in the commercial that DISH gets the “worst rating by

customers” is clearly false in the sense in which it is intended to be understood by current and

prospective DISH subscribers – the Tribune’s targeted recipients – as it suggests DISH was the

lowest-ranked provider when it actually was among the highest-ranked. These statements, along

with the rest of the defamatory content, are available on numerous Tribune-created websites,

including but not limited to those identified above and http://www.dumpdish.com/wgn9;

http://www.dumpdish.com/kcpq; http://www.dumpdish.com/wnep;

http://www.dumpdish.com/ktla.

18. Not only are certain, specific statements on the websites and commercials

misleading, but Tribune’s entire campaign is deceptive. It is not the expression of thoughtful

criticism or bona fide opinions concerning DISH. Tribune’s purpose in launching these websites

and airing these commercials is to disparage DISH and inflame DISH’s current and prospective

customers in order to apply pressure on DISH to accept Tribune’s terms for a renewal of the

Retransmission Agreement. Tribune asks DISH subscribers to bombard DISH with requests that

DISH accede to Tribune’s demands and renew its agreement to distribute Tribune Programming.

Given its obvious interest in renewing a contractual relationship with DISH to distribute its

programming, Tribune cannot believe the extraordinarily negative commentary about DISH that

again received a "worse" rating by customers for value, the lowest possible grade, but so did twenty-eight of the thirty providers in the survey.


10188.004 3397788v4 10

it is broadcasting over the Internet and its television channels. Tribune in fact knows that DISH

actually ranks among the best providers in overall customer satisfaction. The very survey it

(misleadingly) cites ranked DISH the fifth best television provider out of the twenty-four

considered in the survey. And in researching its deceptive claim, it must have uncovered

comparable consumer surveys reflecting, for example, that DISH is best in the industry in having

the lowest customer complaint rate since 2010. Tribune’s campaign is nothing more than a false

and deceptive ploy to force DISH to accept Tribune’s terms by disparaging DISH – in ways

Tribune cannot actually believe – to its current and prospective customers.

19. The website – particularly the video commercial featured on Tribune’s website

and, on information and belief, broadcast on Tribune’s channels to DISH subscribers – also

engaged in the unauthorized use of DISH’s trademarked name and logo in a manner that

tarnishes and dilutes the value of that trademark. Among other things, Tribune’s use of the

trademarked DISH name and logo in words like “dishgusting” and “dishturbing” obviously has a

negative impact on the value of DISH’s brand and trademark. After written demand from DISH,

apparently recognizing that its use of DISH’s mark constitutes illegal tarnishment, Tribune has

revamped the commercial presented on the websites to remove the “dish” featuring DISH’s

trademarked logo. See www.dumpdish.com/wgn9.php. The original commercial, which was

broadcast on Tribune’s channels and initially featured on the websites, is – at the time of this

writing – still available on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3W0E3YNtM.

Below is a screenshot of the commercial disparaging and tarnishing DISH’s trademark:


09617.006 3467917v4 11

20. As a result of these deceptive and defamatory statements, many subscribers have

called DISH, and will continue to call DISH, to ask questions. The websites and commercials

greatly increase the volume of phone calls that DISH’s customer service agents manage in a

given day and require DISH to increase its staffing levels in order to manage the call volume.

DISH is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Tribune’s reason for urging subscribers

to call DISH to voice concerns is to ensure that DISH subscribers will overload DISH’s customer

service representatives with telephone calls.

21. Even more damaging is the misleading and deceptive messages broadcast by

Tribune via its channels and the websites, which also cause subscribers to cancel DISH services.

DISH is one of several television providers that a subscriber can choose from. As a result,

DISH’s reputation and goodwill are crucial to its efforts to obtain new subscribers and retain

current subscribers. The websites and commercials damage DISH’s reputation and goodwill,

and lead potential and current subscribers to select a different service provider. After a customer


10188.004 3397788v4 12

changes service providers, moreover, it is often very unlikely that DISH will get them back.

Tribune’s websites and commercials therefore unlawfully and intentionally interfere with

DISH’s business relationships in at least two ways: (1) they cause current customers to

terminate their contracts with DISH, which leads to both current damages as well as the loss of

prospective economic advantage from those subscribers going forward; and (2) they cause

prospective DISH subscribers to choose a different television provider.

22. The websites and commercials described above are intended to confuse and anger

DISH subscribers. Tribune’s sole purpose in orchestrating the effort to distribute these websites

and commercials is to gain an unfair advantage in its contract negotiations with DISH by causing

it economic injury and by threatening to continue to cause it economic injury unless DISH

succumbs to Tribune’s unreasonable negotiation demands.

FIRST CLAIM Interference with Contractual Relations and Prospective Economic Advantage

23. DISH incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1-22 as though fully set forth

herein.

24. DISH and each of its subscribers enter into a contract by which DISH provides

television service via satellite or Internet to the subscriber. These subscriber contracts are valid

and enforceable. Tribune is aware that DISH has a contractual relationship with each of its

subscribers.

25. Through its false and deceptive campaign against DISH – broadcast to DISH

subscribers through its channels or websites it created and controls – Tribune has intentionally

induced DISH subscribers to terminate their subscriber contracts with DISH and change to a

different television service provider. Indeed, Tribune explicitly encourages DISH subscribers to

change providers. As a result, DISH subscribers are terminating their agreements with DISH


09617.006 3467917v4 13

based upon Tribune’s wrongful conduct; namely, the misleading and deceptive content featured

on Tribune’s commercials and websites, as well as its unauthorized and tarnishing use of DISH’s

trademark.

26. As a result of Tribune’s wrongful conduct in inducing DISH subscribers to cancel

their subscriber agreements with DISH, DISH has suffered actual damages, including, but not

limited to, increased costs associated with staffing additional customer service representatives,

lost revenue from subscribers who have decided to cancel their subscriber agreements with DISH

out of concerns raised by Tribune’s wrongful conduct, and damage to DISH’s goodwill and

reputation. When a current subscriber cancels his or her contract, DISH also loses prospective

economic advantage since DISH’s contract with the subscriber gives rise to the reasonable

expectation of such advantage going forward.

27. In addition to the damages sustained when current subscribers terminate their

agreements with DISH, DISH has a reasonable expectancy that it will enter into a valid business

relationship with prospective subscribers to its television services. Tribune is aware that DISH

expects to enter into future subscriber agreements with new subscribers.

28. Through its negative campaign against DISH – broadcast to DISH subscribers

through its channels or websites it created and controls – Tribune has intentionally induced

prospective DISH subscribers to reconsider entering into a subscriber agreement with DISH, thus

terminating DISH’s reasonable expectancy of establishing a valuable business relationship with

prospective customers. DISH is informed and believes that prospective subscribers are refusing

to enter into agreements with DISH based upon Tribune’s wrongful conduct; namely, the

misleading and deceptive content featured on Tribune’s commercials and websites, as well as its

unauthorized and tarnishing use of DISH’s trademark.


10188.004 3397788v4 14

29. As a result of Tribune’s wrongful conduct in inducing prospective DISH

subscribers to refuse to enter into subscriber agreements with DISH, DISH has suffered actual

damages, including, but not limited to, lost revenue from prospective subscribers who have

decided not to enter into subscriber agreements with DISH out of concerns raised by Tribune’s

wrongful conduct, and damage to DISH’s goodwill and reputation.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, DISH prays for relief on its First Claim as follows:

1. Monetary damages, including damage arising from DISH’s increased

expenditures, lost revenue, and damages to DISH’s goodwill and reputation, in an amount in

excess of $75,000;

2. Costs of suit; and

3. Any other such relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DATED: June 20, 2016 By: /s/Richard R. Patch Richard R. Patch (CA Bar No. 088049)

Rees F. Morgan (CA Bar No. 229899) COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP One Montgomery Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 391-4800 Facsimile: (415) 989-1663 Email: [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff DISH NETWORK L.L.C.


�� !�"��#�$$$$$$$$$$� ��"��!�$$$$$$$$$$��%&'()*(++,-.� ��/0+0)1')*,-. 2344562786797:8;8<79:=856��>�,/0+0)1')*?-@)'A0@')1@'11B0--.��C��#��D��!��E��F��G��H��#�� E�G��!��"��"��!��#��G��F��#��E�G�G��"��E��I��"��E�G��!�G��"��#��E��"��E��F��GJ��"��!!��"��"��K��G��!��#��E��E��"�D�E��L�E��M�� "��N��I�G��"��#��K��!!��C�"��#��#�E��K��"��E�"�� !�#��L�E�"��!��M"��E�"��#��C�"��"��D��"��E��#��K��!!��"�K��!!O��"��GJC#��E��EE"��"�>�!�G��!��"��K��EJ�P�EF��DG�E�!��C��D��"�E��F��G��!�"��#��"��!�E��E�E��#��K��Q��!��G��"��C�"��"��C��#��#��"� RSTUV@WX@RWYUZ ��> [(\)'*]B0@+@R&0B_@B@/0]*a@R&0B_bbbbbbbbbbbbbbcdefgdhfbijbkiligmniopqrstuvwxyzs{|{|}|~ss�s}��s��s��s��~vyp��tus�yx�o}�qvpt�s}x��t�~s{{}~ss�so��s��s��s��~v��s��s}��~s{{}s��s��s��s��sq��s��s��s}��sq��s}��s��s}��sy��~sq��s��sw��~so��s� ¡�¡y��¢��sy|s��¢ssy��s£|s��ss}x�{utv¤s��v}rso�££�s¥s��qqs{{�sx��s��sq��~sq��s¦��sq��s£��~s}�ss ��§Case 1:16-cv-01548 Document 1-1 Filed 06/20/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

�� M�F�� ©55ª75ª72«©;8:«¬®°±°²³µ¶±°®µ·¹±¶µ±º²±»²¹±¼ ®±®²±³µ·½±·¶²°°±½²¾·½²¹±º¿±À²¹Á±ÂÁ±ÃÄÁ±ÅÁ±Æ±¬ÇÇ�#��!�"�,)'A0@+@()1(È(1]'&@')1@*(*&0É@(+@')a.C��"��E�DG��,1'*0. Ê��K�"��G��"��E��#��#��E��E��@,&'Ë0.��,1'*0. Ì��"Ê��!��#��#��E��E��O��"��E��"��K��!��D�E��C��#�,)'A0.J��K�"��!��D��F��E�E��"��C#��"��E��#�"�J��,1'*0. J��E��E��KG��#��E��E��O��Í��C��EE"��Ì��"Ê��"��E��#��,)'A0@+@()1(È(1]'&. J�C#��E��F��E�DG��C��K��"��!�K"��D�#��!��!�,)'A0@+@B\')(Î'*().��,1'*0. Ì��"Ê��"��"��E��#��Ï��E�D�� Ì��"Ê��#�"�,-0Ë(+a.Ð ÑG�!��"��Ò !�"��"��E�Ò !�"��"��J�!�"��!�Ò ��E��"��E�"�K��G��!�K�"P�"G��#��#��!�"��"�� > [0BÈ0B?-@-(\)'*]B0%B()*01@)'A0@')1@*(*&0[0BÈ0B?-@'11B0--�EE��!�"��"�F�"E��F��K��E��"��J��> �|��Case 1:16-cv-01548 Document 1-1 Filed 06/20/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

JS 44 (Rev. 11/15) District of Colorado Form CIVIL COVER SHEETThe 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 asprovided 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 thepurpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEFPlaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4

of Business In This State

’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6 Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC ’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 840 Trademark ’ 460 Deportation

Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY Corrupt Organizations

’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) ’ 480 Consumer Credit of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV

’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI Exchange’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 751 Family and Medical ’ 891 Agricultural Acts

’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act ’ 893 Environmental Matters Medical Malpractice ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation ’ 895 Freedom of Information

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS Act’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 896 Arbitration’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) ’ 899 Administrative Procedure’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act/Review or Appeal of’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 950 Constitutionality of’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION State Statutes

Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration

Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition

’ 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

’ 1 OriginalProceeding

’ 2 Removed fromState Court

’ 3 Remanded fromAppellate Court

’ 4 Reinstated orReopened

’ 5 Transferred fromAnother District(specify)

’ 6 MultidistrictLitigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED INCOMPLAINT:

’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTIONUNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

AP Docket

Case 1:16-cv-01548 Document 1-2 Filed 06/20/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

kks

Typewritten Text

Exceeds $75,000

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 11/15) District of Colorado Form

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 asrequired by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, isrequired 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 ofCourt for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I.(a) 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.

(b) 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.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, notingin 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 amendmentto 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 takesprecedence, 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, thecitizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversitycases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark thissection 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, issufficient 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 thanone 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 filingdate.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 ormultidistrict 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; OR "AP Docket."

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 docketnumbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.

Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Case 1:16-cv-01548 Document 1-2 Filed 06/20/16 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

Documents

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO DISH NETWORK L.L.C., JURY ... · the rights to distribute programming. As of March 31, 2016, DISH had approximately 13.874 million pay-TV subscribers.1