IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
POWERBAHN, LLC, Plaintiff,
v. FOUNDATION FITNESS LLC, WAHOO FITNESS, LLC, and PATRICK WARNER, Defendants.
Civil Action File No. 1:17-cv-02965-AT Special Master William H. Needle
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff POWERbahn, LLC (“POWERbahn”) states its First Amended
Complaint against Defendants Foundation Fitness LLC (“Foundation”), Wahoo
Fitness, LLC (“Wahoo”), and Patrick Warner (“Warner”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) as set forth below.
PARTIES
1. POWERbahn is a Florida limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Reno, Nevada.
2. Foundation is an Oregon limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Portland, Oregon.
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 1 of 23
2
3. Wahoo is a Georgia limited liability company with its principal place
of business in Atlanta, Georgia.
4. Warner is the Senior Vice President of Foundation. Warner
previously worked as the Senior Vice President of Product Development for
Nautilus, Inc. Upon information and belief, Warner is an individual resident of the
State of Colorado and has extensive contacts with this judicial district directly
related to the conduct that forms the basis of this First Amended Complaint, both
personally and as Senior Vice President for Foundation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), on the grounds that it arises under the patent laws of
the United States including, without limitation, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., and 35
U.S.C. § 256.
6. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over Foundation based
on Foundation’s express consent to venue in this district [Dkt.# 78, paragraph 12],
Foundation’s active participation in this action since its transfer, and Foundation’s
substantial, continuous, and systematic activities and business ties with Wahoo in
this judicial district directly related to the claims asserted herein.
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 2 of 23
3
7. This Court has general personal jurisdiction over Wahoo on the
grounds that Wahoo is organized under the laws of the State of Georgia and
maintains its principal place of business in this judicial district.
8. This Court’s ongoing exercise of personal jurisdiction over
Defendants in this action is consistent with the Georgia’s long-arm statute and
traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
9. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2)
and 1400.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10. POWERbahn is a Reno-based company that researches and develops
products and technology concerning, and owns and licenses patents covering,
exercise devices and methods that incorporate POWERbahn’s proprietary
technology, among other things.
11. POWERbahn discovered that by dynamically adjusting the forces
applied to a flywheel powered by, for example, a human pedaling a cycle
apparatus, one could simulate virtually the experience of riding a bicycle outdoors,
including on specific routes such as the Tour de France. In this example, the forces
applied to the flywheel (rotating member) could mimic the inertia, momentum,
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 3 of 23
4
wind, friction of the road, and hills, so that a rider would feel as if he were cycling
the French Alps on a windy day.
12. From the late 1990s through 2005, POWERbahn’s owner and
manager, Scott Radow, further developed this technology and filed a number of
patent applications covering these and similar inventions, including the patents
asserted herein, and registered his copyright in the software he created to
implement these inventions.
13. Mr. Radow began promoting his invention to the fitness industry.
One of the companies to take notice was Nautilus, Inc., which in 2004 was one of
the major manufacturers of many kinds of exercise equipment, including stationary
bicycles, weight lifting machines, stair climbers, elliptical machines, and the like
from household name brands such as Nautilus, Schwinn, and Stairmaster.
14. In the Spring of 2004, an executive from Nautilus, Inc. (“Nautilus”)
named Patrick A. Warner, having learned of Mr. Radow’s invention, discussed
with Mr. Radow whether POWERbahn would be interested in licensing to Nautilus
the patents, copyright, source code, and know-how that covered the “virtual
flywheel” technology.
15. On May 20, 2004, POWERbahn and Nautilus executed a document
entitled “Term Sheet” (attached as Exhibit A) that provided, among other things:
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 4 of 23
5
• A license of POWERbahn technology and intellectual property to
Nautilus.
• Nautilus would pay POWERbahn $41,883 to develop a prototype
stationary exercise bike embodying POWERbahn technology.
• POWERbahn would be responsible for control and protection of
the intellectual property arising from development of the
prototype, and all such intellectual property, including know-how
and patent rights, would be the subject of the license from
POWERbahn to Nautilus.
• Nautilus would pay POWERbahn a royalty of 5% of net sales of
any product in which the licensed technology was embodied, with
a minimum royalty of not less than $125,000 per year by the third
year of the license.
16. POWERbahn spent approximately nine months developing the
prototype.
17. On March 6, 2005, POWERbahn reported that the prototype was
ready:
In terms of dynamic range given the alternator’s new 3 AC configuration, we tested 400 watts of continuous power output with peaks in excess of 1000 watts. It’s
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 5 of 23
6
this high peak capability in combination with our ability to rapidly adjust alternator resistance to very low levels which allows us to achieve the virtual flywheel effect.
(3/6/2005 and 3/7/2005 E-mails attached hereto as Exhibit B.)
18. Warner responded, “I am glad to hear that it is working so well. I
can’t wait to see it in San Francisco.” (Id.)
19. On March 17, 2005, POWERbahn and Nautilus met in San Francisco
for an initial demonstration of the prototype. The demonstration was highly
successful. Nautilus accepted the prototype and raved about it at a meeting/demo
at the Hyatt Hotel in San Francisco during the International Health, Racquet and
Sportsclub Association (“IHRSA”) industry trade show.
20. With the POWERbahn prototype, indoor cycle training no longer felt
like a boring grind. It had the feel of riding outside, and riders could feel the hills,
both up and down, momentum, and variations of pedal forces within each stroke.
Pat Warner, then Senior Vice President of Product Development for Nautilus said
that unlike other indoor trainers, “it rolls.”
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 6 of 23
7
Pat Warner riding POWERbahn prototype, March 17, 2005.
Pat Warner (Nautilus), Scott Radow (POWERbahn), and Mike Harding (Nautilus)
March 17, 2005 at demonstration of POWERbahn prototype.
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 7 of 23
8
21. With the successful demonstration of the prototype, Nautilus
communicated to POWERbahn that it wanted to move ahead with an exclusive
license of the “virtual flywheel” technology as set forth in the Term Sheet.
22. On March 28, 2005, Warner wrote to POWERbahn stating: “I have
asked Holden [Nautilus’ attorney] to get you the license agreement [as soon as
possible]. He is going to plug in our terms from the term sheet to get the ball
rolling. It was great to actually ride the product. Thanks for the effort that went
into getting it to work.” (3/28/2005 E-mail attached hereto as Exhibit C.)
23. On April 18, 2005, Warner emailed Radow saying “Can’t wait to
shock the industry.” (4/18/2005 email attached as Exhibit D.)
24. In December of 2005, after months of negotiation, Nautilus and
POWERbahn executed the Exclusive License Agreement (“ELA”) (attached hereto
as Exhibit E).
25. The ELA provided, among other things, the following:
• POWERbahn granted Nautilus an exclusive worldwide license to
POWERbahn’s patents, copyrighted software, and know-how in
the field of exercise equipment;
• Nautilus agreed to pay POWERbahn royalty payments of up to
$250,000 as an annual minimum and 5% of net sales;
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 8 of 23
9
• The parties together became obligated to preserve the
confidentiality of protected information, not to use it except as
permitted under the ELA, to limit access to employees and others
bound by separate confidentiality agreements and who reasonably
require access to the information, and to bear responsibility for
employees’ and others’ improper use of confidential information;
and
• Nautilus acknowledged that title to the intellectual property and
any and all modifications, enhancements, derivative works,
improvement patents, copyrights, know-how or the like vested
solely in POWERbahn.
26. To facilitate the ELA, POWERbahn entered an exclusive license
agreement (attached hereto as Exhibit F) with Radow (its owner and manager, and
the inventor of the technology) under which Radow granted POWERbahn an
exclusive license to the technology claimed in Radow’s patents, as well as all
associated copyrights, trade secrets, and know-how (“the Radow-POWERbahn
License”). (Id. § 2.1.) The Radow-POWERbahn License also granted to
POWERbahn the right to sue to enforce these rights. (Id. § 3.2.)
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 9 of 23
10
27. POWERbahn and Nautilus performed under the ELA for three years,
and POWERbahn provided to Nautilus significant volumes of confidential and
proprietary information, trade secrets, know how, and source code under the
confidentiality, restricted use, and nondisclosure provisions of the ELA, as well as
in reliance on POWERbahn’s ownership of all modifications, enhancements,
derivative works, improvement patents, copyrights, and know-how.
28. On December 31, 2008, Nautilus terminated the Exclusive License
Agreement, stating: “Unfortunately, in the current environment we are unable to
continue under the Agreement as it is currently structured.” (12/31/2008
Termination Letter attached hereto as Exhibit G.) Nautilus stated further “It is my
understanding that Pat Warner may have some ideas and thoughts regarding areas
of mutual opportunity for the future between Nautilus and POWERbahn.” (Id.)
29. By the terms of the ELA, Nautilus’s and its employees’
confidentiality, restricted use, and non-disclosure obligations survived termination
of the ELA.
30. Section 7(c) of the ELA between Nautilus and POWERbahn provides,
“Upon termination of the Agreement, each party shall promptly deliver to the other
party all tangible and intangible embodiments, electronic or hard copy, including
all copies, of the other party’s Confidential Information.”
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 10 of 23
11
31. Notwithstanding this provision, Warner and Nautilus failed to return
the source code and other intellectual property that belonged to POWERbahn
promptly as required. POWERbahn was forced to retain counsel in order to obtain
Nautilus’s compliance with Section 7(c) of the Exclusive License Agreement.
(9/2/2009 Letter to Warner attached hereto as Exhibit H.)
32. Even then, Warner failed to return POWERbahn’s confidential
information until October 30, 2009 – ten months later. (10/30/2009 Email attached
hereto as Exhibit I.)
33. In 2010, Warner left Nautilus to join Foundation.
34. In addition to Warner, other Nautilus employees who had access to
POWERbahn confidential information during the term of the ELA left Nautilus to
join Foundation or Foundation affiliated companies, including Andrew P. Lull, Jim
Liggett, and Douglas Crawford.
35. In November and December of 2010, shortly after joining Foundation,
Warner and Radow discussed possible terms for a business arrangement that would
have allowed Foundation to use POWERbahn technology legally. Foundation
would not agree to POWERbahn’s terms, however, and the parties never entered
into a contract.
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 11 of 23
12
36. Upon information and belief, the former Nautilus employees who
joined Foundation or its affiliates were and remain subject to the confidentiality,
non-use, and non-disclosure obligations of their employment, separation, and/or
other agreements with Nautilus that protect the POWERbahn confidential or
proprietary information they learned under the ELA while employed at Nautilus.
37. Without POWERbahn’s knowledge and upon information and belief,
Warner and/or other former Nautilus employees improperly took to Foundation
and/or its affiliates POWERbahn’s source code and “virtual flywheel” technology
provided by POWERbahn to Nautilus in breach of their employment and/or
contractual obligations to Nautilus and of the ELA.
38. Having improperly obtained POWERbahn’s confidential and
proprietary technology through its former Nautilus employees, Foundation and
Wahoo then incorporated POWERbahn’s technology, including the POWERbahn
source code and trade secrets, into a new product that was called the “KICKR
POWER TRAINER” (hereinafter, “KICKR”). Foundation and Wahoo knew or
should have known of Warner’s and the other former Nautilus employees’
confidentiality obligations to Nautilus (and by extension to POWERbahn) and at
best disregarded those obligations or at worst encouraged their breach.
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 12 of 23
13
39. In April of 2012, Warner wrote to POWERbahn about the KICKR
project stating that he was “working on something big. Warner went on to state
that the project would go forward without POWERbahn, which came as a surprise
to POWERbahn since Warner’s e-mail indicated to POWERbahn that Defendants
intended to incorporate illegally POWERbahn technology into the KICKR.
40. KICKR was launched about August of 2012 at Eurobike in Europe
and subsequently in the United States about September of 2012 at the Interbike
trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada.
41. Wahoo’s Chip Hawkins strongly suggested infringement and
misappropriation of POWERbahn technology by publicly stating in writing “We
can add in brake torque dynamically to make up for the delta between real
bike/rider weight and flywheel inertia. This allows us to provide a feel that is
about as close as you can get to going outside and riding without requiring a really
massive flywheel.”
42. The technology to do what Hawkins describes is what POWERbahn
provided to Nautilus, what Warner and the other former Nautilus employees took
to Foundation, and what is incorporated in the KICKr.
43. The KICKR became the largest selling electronic trainer in history.
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 13 of 23
14
44. Foundation and Wahoo sell the KICKR, along with other major
retailers such as REI, Apple Inc., and Amazon.com.
45. On or about August 27, 2012, Wahoo filed provisional patent
application number 61/693,685, entitled “Bicycle Trainer” listing former
Nautilus/then-current Foundation employee Andrew P. Lull and Wahoo’s Harold
M. Hawkins III and as inventors (“the ’685 Provisional”).
46. After seeing Wahoo’s demonstration of the KICKR at the Eurobike
exhibition in Friedrichshafen, Germany, Mr. Radow emailed Warner on August
30, 2012, asking, “know anything about Wahoo’s KICKR trainer?” (8/30/2012 E-
Mail attached hereto as Exhibit J.) Warner replied, “Yes, in fact I know a lot about
it.” (Id.)
47. At the Interbike exhibition in Las Vegas, Nevada, September 19-21,
2012, Foundation and Wahoo provided demonstrations of the KICKR.
Radow/POWERbahn saw Wahoo offer the KICKR for sale at the September 2012
Interbike exhibition, but did not know at the time the extent to which KICKR
incorporated POWERbahn’s intellectual property. Radow/POWERbahn also saw
that Foundation had the exact same KICKR in its separate and distinct trade booth
at the September 2012 Interbike exhibition, seemingly for demonstration.
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 14 of 23
15
48. On August 26, 2013, Wahoo filed utility patent application number
13/975,720 entitled “Bicycle Trainer” listing Wahoo’s Harold Hawkins, and
Foundation’s Andrew Lull as inventors (“the ’720 Application”). Lull previously
reported to Warner while both were employed by Nautilus, and Warner and Lull
both wound up working at Foundation in or around 2010, where, on information
and belief, Lull again reports to Warner. The ’720 Application claimed priority to
the ’685 Provisional and was published on June 19, 2014.
49. On Dec. 19, 2013, Wahoo filed a continuation-in-part (“CIP”) of the
’720 application, which CIP ultimately issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,046,222 on
August 14, 2018 entitled “System and Method for Controlling a Bicycle Trainer”
listing only Wahoo’s Hawkins, Lyle, and Collins as inventors, but omitting former
Nautilus/then-current Foundation employee, Lull (“the ’222 Patent”). The
application that became the ’222 Patent was also published on June 19, 2014.
50. In or around early 2015, POWERbahn learned that Lull was named as
an inventor on the ’720 Application, which published on June 19, 2014.
51. POWERbahn filed the original complaint in this action on June 18,
2015.
52. The ’222 Patent issued on August 14, 2018, and incorporates
numerous inventions, source code, and other intellectual property of POWERbahn
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 15 of 23
16
which, upon information and belief, Defendants learned from the former Nautilus
employees who misappropriated POWERbahn’s information from Nautilus, and
which were covered by the former Nautilus employees’ confidentiality, non-use,
and non-disclosure obligations to Nautilus, and by extension, to POWERbahn.
53. Only upon issuance of the ’222 Patent did POWERbahn begin to
understand fully the extent to which Defendants misappropriated POWERbahn’s
confidential and proprietary information and intellectual property.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count 1: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,066,865
54. POWERbahn re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth
herein.
55. POWERbahn holds an exclusive license with the right to sue under
U.S. Patent No. 7,066,865 (“the ’865 patent”) (attached hereto as Exhibit K).
56. Foundation and Wahoo have directly infringed and continue to
infringe at least claim 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 24 of the ’865 Patent, literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, having made, using, selling, offering
for sale, and/or importing into the United States the KICKR Power Trainer and the
KICKR Snap Trainer, which satisfy each element of each asserted claim of the
’865 Patent.
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 16 of 23
17
57. The infringement by Foundation and Wahoo has been willful, each
having actual knowledge of POWERbahn’s and Radow’s rights in the ’865 Patent.
Specifically, Warner acquired a detailed knowledge of the invention claimed in the
’865 patent while an executive at Nautilus under the confidentiality provisions of
the ELA. Warner took this knowledge of the rights claimed in the ’865 patent—
and knowledge of the ’865 Patent itself—with him to Foundation and shared the
information with Wahoo for purposes of infringing the ’865 Patent.
58. POWERbahn is entitled to damages, which cannot be less than a
reasonable royalty, in addition to enhanced damages and attorney’s fees as a result
of Foundation and Wahoo’s willful infringement.
Count 2: Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,066,865
59. POWERbahn re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth
herein.
60. Foundation and Warner knew of the ’865 Patent and took action
during the time the ’865 Patent has been in force intending to cause acts of
infringement by each other, by Wahoo, and/or by customers, distributors,
manufacturers, or users of the accused products. Foundation and Warner’s actions
were taken with knowledge that that the acts would constitute infringement of the
’865 Patent.
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 17 of 23
18
61. The intended acts of infringement of the ’865 Patent actually
occurred, including without limitation the making, having made, using, selling,
offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States the KICKR Power Trainer
and the KICKR Snap Trainer by Wahoo, and Wahoo’s manufacturing partners,
distributes, customers, and/or other affiliates.
62. Foundation and Warner either knew the induced acts, if taken, would
constitute infringement of the ’865 Patent, or believed there was a high probability
that the acts would infringe the ’865 Patent and took deliberate steps to avoid
learning of that infringement.
63. Foundation’s and Warner’s conduct constitutes active inducement to
infringe the ’865 Patent.
64. The induced infringement by Foundation and Warner has been willful,
each having actual knowledge of POWERbahn’s and Radow’s rights in the ’865
Patent, Warner having acquired a detailed knowledge of the invention claimed in
the ’865 patent while an executive at Nautilus, under the confidentiality provisions
of the ELA. Warner took this knowledge of the rights claimed in the ’865 patent—
and knowledge of the ’865 Patent itself—with him to Foundation and used that
information to knowingly and willfully induce infringement of ’865 Patent.
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 18 of 23
19
65. POWERbahn is entitled to damages, which cannot be less than a
reasonable royalty, in addition to enhanced damages and attorney’s fees as a result
of Foundation’s and Warner’s willful inducement of infringement of the ’865
Patent.
Count 3: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,862,476
66. POWERbahn re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth
herein.
67. POWERbahn holds an exclusive license with the right to sue under
U.S. Patent No. 7,862,476 (“the ’476 patent”) (attached hereto as Exhibit L).
68. Foundation and Wahoo have directly infringed and continue to
infringe at least claim 1-3, 6, 8012, 17-09, and 28 of the ’476 Patent, literally or
under the doctrine of equivalents, by making, having made, using, selling, offering
for sale, and/or importing into the United States the KICKR Power Trainer and the
KICKR Snap Trainer, which satisfy each element of each asserted claim of the
’476 Patent.
69. The infringement by Foundation and Wahoo has been willful, each
having actual knowledge of POWERbahn’s and Radow’s rights in the ’476 Patent.
Specifically, Warner acquired a detailed knowledge of the invention claimed in the
’476 patent while an executive at Nautilus under the confidentiality provisions of
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 19 of 23
20
the ELA. Warner took this knowledge of the rights claimed in the ’476 patent—
and knowledge of the ’476 Patent itself—with him to Foundation and shared the
information with Wahoo for purposes of infringing the ’476 Patent.
70. POWERbahn is entitled to damages, which cannot be less than a
reasonable royalty, in addition to enhanced damages and attorney’s fees as a result
of Foundation and Wahoo’s willful infringement.
Count 4: Induced Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,862,476
71. POWERbahn re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth
herein.
72. Foundation and Warner knew of the ’476 Patent and took action
during the time the ’476 Patent has been in force intending to cause acts of
infringement by each other and/or by customers, distributors, manufacturers, or
users of the accused products, with knowledge that that the acts would constitute
infringement of the ’476 Patent.
73. The intended acts of infringement of the ’476 Patent actually
occurred, including without limitation the making, having made, using, selling,
offering for sale, and/or importing into the United States the KICKR Power Trainer
and the KICKR Snap Trainer.
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 20 of 23
21
74. Foundation and Warner either knew the induced acts, if taken, would
constitute infringement of the ’476 Patent, or believed there was a high probability
that the acts would infringe the ’476 Patent and took deliberate steps to avoid
learning of that infringement.
75. Foundation’s and Warner’s conduct constitutes active inducement to
infringe the ’476 Patent.
76. The induced infringement by Foundation and Warner has been willful,
each having actual knowledge of POWERbahn’s and Radow’s rights in the ’476
Patent, Warner having acquired a detailed knowledge of the invention claimed in
the ’476 patent while an executive at Nautilus, under the confidentiality provisions
of the ELA. Warner took this knowledge of the rights claimed in the ’476 patent—
and knowledge of the ’865 Patent itself—with him to Foundation and used that
information to knowingly and willfully induce infringement of ’476 Patent.
77. POWERbahn is entitled to damages, which cannot be less than a
reasonable royalty, in addition to enhanced damages and attorney’s fees as a result
of Foundation’s and Warner’s willful inducement of infringement of the ’476
Patent.
Prayer for Relief
Wherefore, POWERbahn prays for the following relief:
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 21 of 23
22
(a) Judgment that Defendants have willfully infringed the ’865 patent and
the ’476 patent, directly and/or indirectly, and that POWERbahn is entitled to
damages of not less than a reasonable royalty, plus enhanced damages under 35
U.S.C. § 285, and attorneys’ fees;
(b) Such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Demand for Jury Trial
POWERbahn demands a trial by jury on all matters and issues triable by
jury.
This 3rd day of April, 2019.
/s/Daniel A. Kent Daniel A. Kent Georgia Bar Number 415110 [email protected] KENT & RISLEY 5755 N. Point Pkwy, Suite 57 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Phone: (404) 585-4214 Fax: (404) 829-2412 Kelly Casey Mullally Georgia Bar No. 115114 [email protected] TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP 1600 Parkwood Circle, Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30339 Phone: (770) 434-6868 Facsimile: (770) 434-7376
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 22 of 23
23
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing document with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically send e-mail
notification of such filing to all attorneys of record.
This 3rd day of April, 2019.
KENT & RISLEY LLC /s/Daniel A. Kent Daniel A. Kent Georgia Bar Number 415110 [email protected] 5755 N Point Pkwy Ste 57 Alpharetta, GA 30022 Tel: (404) 585-4214 Fax: (404) 829-2412 Attorney for Plaintiff
Case 1:17-cv-02965-AT Document 166 Filed 04/03/19 Page 23 of 23
Recommended