Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Case No. 16-cv-05936

TIMOTHY HOLLAND,
Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT
r~
ANDRE G. BOUCHARD,Chancellor of the State of
Delaware and ROBERT B. PINCUS,as Custodian of
TransPerfect Global, Inc.,
Defendants.

Plaintiff, by his attorneys Garvey Schubert Barer, complains of the Defendants and
alleges:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1331 and 1343 as the claim herein is pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 to redress the deprivation,
under color of State law, of Plaintiff's rights and privileges under the Constitution of the United
States.
2.

Venue is proper in this district because a substantial part of the events giving rise

to the claim occurred in the City, County, State and Southern District of New York.
PARTIES
3.

At all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff was, and is, a resident of the County

of Kings, City and State of New York, employed for 12 years by TransPerfect Global, Inc.
("TransPerfect") at a principal place of business in the City, County, State and Southern District
of New York.

GSB:7951115.1

Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 12

4.

Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Andre

G. Bouchard was, and is, a Chancellor in the Chancery Court ofthe State of Delaware.~
5.

Upon information and belief, at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Robert

B. Pincus was, and is, an attorney, and a member of the law firm of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
& Flom. By order entered August 13, 2015, Chancellor Bouchard appointed Mr. Pincus as the
custodian of TransPerfect.
THE TRANSPERFECT LITIGATIONZ
6.

Upon information and belief, founded in 1992, TransPerfect is one of world's

largest translation and litigation support companies, operating world-wide through more than 100
offices, employing more than 4,000 people, generating approximately $500,000,000 in revenue
and approximately $80,000,000 in net profit annually.
7.

Upon information and belief, TransPerfect is privately held entirely by two equal

shareholders, its founders Philip Shawe and Elizabeth Elting, organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware.3 Until the events described below, Shawe and Elting were also
TransPerfect's only directors.
8.

Apparently, tension in the relationship between Mr. Shawe and Ms. Elting

resulted in litigation in various forums in New York and Delaware (the "TransPerfect
Litigation")

' Judicial immunity does not bar a claim for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief. Strauch v. Dowd, 2016
WL 3212180 (2"d. Cir., June 10, 2016).
z The allegations in this section of the complaint are largely drawn from the public court record of In re
TransPerfect Global, Inc., C.A. No. 9700-CB (and related cases) pending the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware.
'Mr. Shawe's mother owns 1% of the equity but apparently unsurprisingly aligns with Mr. Shawe. All references
herein to Shawe are to the collective 50% ownership ofthe Shawe family.

Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2 Filed 07/26/16 Page 3 of 12

9.

Chancellor Bouchard is presiding over the TransPerfect Litigation in the Court of

Chancery in the State of Delaware.

10.

Despite its remarkable growth, extraordinary and continuing profitability and

obligations to its more than 4,000 employees, by August 13, 2015 decision and separate Order
Chancellor Bouchard granted a petition by Elting to dissolve TransPerfect under 8 Del. C.
226(a)(1) and (a)(2).
11.

In that same decision and Order, Chancellor Bouchard appointed Defendant

Pincus as custodian for TransPerfect, entrusting him with the statutory authority to supervise the
sale of TransPerfect in his discretion, and to act as a third director to break any deadlock between
Shawe and Elting. However,Pincus was not vested with the authority that a receiver would have
over the company's assets.
12.

Chancellor Bouchard also attempted in that Order to cloak Defendant Pincus with

full immunity as if he were an officer ofthe State.

13.

Neither Plaintiff, nor any other TransPerfect employee, other than Shawe and

Elting, were parties to the TransPerfect Litigation, and the interests of the employees were not
represented in the TransPerfect Litigation.
14.

Neither could Plaintiff nor any other TransPerfect employee intervene in the

TransPerfect litigation because no one other than Shawe and Elting had or have an interest in
corporate control and profit distribution questions at issue before Chancellor Bouchard.
Consequently, neither Plaintiff nor any other TransPerfect employee has standing to appeal
Chancellor Bouchard's decision and Order.

Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2 Filed 07/26/16 Page 4 of 12

PLAINTIFF AND MANY OTHER TRANSPERFECT EMPLOYEES -- SPEAK OUT

15.

As a consequence of Chancellor Bouchard's decision and Order, Plaintiff and

many other TransPerfect employees became quite concerned regarding the future of
TransPerfect and their own jobs and careers.
16.

Being unable to participate in the TransPerfect Litigation, Plaintiff and many

other TransPerfect employees searched for other avenues to publicly express their concerns
and opinions as to the future of the company and their own futures, and to attempt to avoid the
risk that the company for which they had labored so successfully would be destroyed by a forced
sale.
17.

In one effort, on or about April 26, 2016, 610 TransPerfect employees published

an open letter, broadly disseminated in the United States mails to approximately 10,000
Delaware households, urging the public to voice objection to Chancellor Bouchard's
appointment of a custodian for the forced sale of such a successful business.
18.

Subsequently, on or about May 11, 2016, a number of TransPerfect employees

formed an entity known as "Citizens for afro-Business Delaware, Inc." ("Citizens"). Plaintiff
was Citizens' incorporator.
19.

On or about May 23, 2016, Citizens issued a press release published, inter alia, in

Bloomberg Law and the Delaware State News setting forth the belief of its members that
Chancellor Bouchard's Order for the sale of TransPerfect was inappropriate and explaining why
this was so. The release promised "a multifaceted campaign" to raise awareness "with Delaware
residents, elected officials, and other stakeholders, to ensure they understand the consequences
the Court's ruling would have on the state and its underlying economy."

Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2 Filed 07/26/16 Page 5 of 12

20.

To conduct its public campaign, Citizens retained the professional public relations

firm that had previously advised former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
21.

Citizens also retained a respected lobbyist in the State of Delaware to argue its

cause in the Delaware State Legislature, the result of which was a June 28, 2016 joint resolution
introduced in the Delaware State Senate and General Assembly requesting the Delaware State
Bar Association to examine Delaware's existing business entity laws with a view towards
whether the right to order dissolution or sale of a profitable company be reexamined.
DEFENDANT PINCUS IMMEDIATELY MOVES TO STIFLE
PLAINTIFF AND CITIZENS
22.

On May 23,2016, the very same date that Citizens' release was published, written

instructions were issued to all TransPerfect employees, including Plaintiff and many other
TransPerfect employees working at TransPerfect's offices in the City, County, State and
Southern District of New York, stating as follows:
It has come to our attention that some of our employees have
recently spoken with the media about the pending litigation
between the shareholders of TransPerfect, and in some instances
seemingly have sought to attempt to pressure the Delaware court.
We believe that those actions are counterproductive and that they
should stop.
23.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Pincus caused these instructions to issue.

The bases for Plaintiff's information and belief are that:

A.

the instructions were issued in the name of TransPerfect's Board of Directors;

B.

by email that same date, Mr. Shawe advised that he did not approve issuing those
instructions;

C.

that means that only Defendant Pincus, in his role as the court-appointed third
TransPerfect director, could have joined with Ms. Elting in serving her self-

Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2 Filed 07/26/16 Page 6 of 12

interest, and authorized the instructions that TransPerfect employees cease and
desist exercising their right to free speech;
D.

that the instructions were sent under cover of email from Joel Mostrom, of
Alvarez & Marsal North America, who was hired by Defendant Pincus to assist
him in executing the duties assigned to him on appointment by Chancellor
Bouchard; and further

E.

that by letter dated May 27, 2016 to Chancellor Bouchard, Ms. Elting's counsel
specifically and explicitly admitted that "The Custodian" is addressing the
situation.

24.

Moreover, Plaintiff, as the incorporator of Citizens, was singled out for particular

intimidation. In or about late May,2016, Mostrom telephoned Plaintiff within the City and State
of New York, repeatedly and insistently asking Plaintiff to identify the other TransPerfect
employees who were members of Citizens; and implying that Plaintiff's employment could be at
risk if Citizens' efforts continue and Plaintiff did not cooperate with attempts to stifle employee
activities regarding judicially authorized forced sale of the company.
25.

By reason of the May 23 written instructions and the phone call from Mostrom,

Plaintiff reasonably believed, and reasonably believes (as would any person of reasonable
firmness similarly situated), that his TransPerfect employment is at risk as a result of his
participation in speaking out against the Order compelling the involuntary sale of TransPerfect
and in petitioning the Delaware State Legislature for legislative relief.

C:

Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2 Filed 07/26/16 Page 7 of 12

CHANCELLOR BOUCHARD SUBSTANTIALLY ASSISTS

IN EFFORTS TO STIFLE PLAINTIFF AND CITIZENS
26.

Also within days of the Citizens' press release and mailing, on or about May 27,

2016, Ms. Elting's lawyers wrote to Chancellor Bouchard complaining of Citizens' (a)"media
blitz on radio, in newspapers, and in on-line publications";(b)to Citizens hiring of"a prominent
New York public relations firm"; and (c) its hiring local lobbyist Patrick Allen to "suggest
legislation to the governor and legislators to block

. `judicial overreach' from occurring

again."(Ellipses in the original).

27.

Counsel's May 27, 2016 letter to Chancellor Bouchard specifically identified

Plaintiff as Citizens' incorporator and an "employee in TransPerfect's New York office ..."
28.

By letter to Chancellor Bouchard dated July 11, 2016, Ms. Elting's counsel

conceded that Defendant Pincus had actually unsuccessfully searched TransPerfect's server
looking for any communication relating to the efforts by Plaintiff and Citizens.
29.

Not to be stymied in attempts to uncover and stop all TransPerfect employees'

efforts to express their positions and petition to redress grievances, upon information and belief
Pincus' lawyers submitted a proposed order to Chancellor Bouchard, which, among other things,
afforded Defendant Pincus the right to demand that employees deliver private communications
devices for inspection without regard to privacy concerns.
30.

The clear implication of counsel's July 11, 20161etter is that this provision in the

proposed order is intended to suppress TransPerfect employees' efforts to express their views
and opinions.

Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2 Filed 07/26/16 Page 8 of 12

31.

The proposed order also vested Defendant Pincus with full, complete and virtually

unchallengeable authority over all employment decisions, and makes all TransPerfect employees
(without regard to whether they would be subject to Delaware jurisdiction) subject to sanction by
the Court for failing to "cooperate fully" with anything Defendant Pincus requires.
32.

And, finally, the proposed order attempts to choke off any reasonable opportunity

for employees to obtain judicial redress by directing that all actions by employees (again,
without regard to whether they are subject to Delaware jurisdiction) could only be brought before
Chancellor Bouchard.
33.

The proposed order was supposedly to establish the procedure for TransPerfect's

forced sale. These provisions in blatant derogation of the rights of TransPerfect employees
including Plaintiff have absolutely nothing to do with the sale procedure. The sole purpose for
including these oppressive provisions could therefore only be to stifle any employee dissent, and
to permit a witch hunt and expulsion of any employee including Plaintiff attempting to speak
out against Chancellor Bouchard's forced sale of TransPerfect or to petition the legislature or
judiciary to redress their grievances.
34.

Mr. Shawe's lawyers objected to certain provisions ofthe proposed order.

35.

On July 18, 2016, Chancellor Bouchard entered the proposed order exactly as

submitted by Pincus' lawyers, without changing so much as a single comma.

36.

This action promptly follows.

Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2 Filed 07/26/16 Page 9 of 12

DEFENDANTS'CONDUCT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
CHILLS PLAINTIFF'S EXERCISE OF HIS FIRST AND FOURTH
AMENDMENT RIGHTS UNDER THE COLOR OF STATE LAW
37.

Given Chancellor Bouchard's order -- particularly in light of the instructions

against public statements and the harassing phone call issued and/or caused by Defendant Pincus
in the City, County, State and Southern District of New York Plaintiff is afraid to speak
concerning TransPerfect's situation, or to petition a legislature for appropriate relief.
38.

Since any such conduct could result both in Plaintiff's losing his job and facing

sanctions from Chancellor Bouchard, any similarly situated individual of ordinary firmness
would be similarly chilled by the conduct of Chancellor Bouchard and Defendant Pincus.
39.

Likewise, in limiting any judicial challenge by any TransPerfect employee,

including Plaintiff, to his court without regard to even minimal contacts required by notions of
constitutional due process, justice and fair play, Chancellor Bouchard is further depriving
TransPerfect employees, including Plaintiff, of the First Amendment right to petition, and to due
process of law.
40.

By giving Defendant Pincus the right to demand personal and private electronic

records of any TransPerfect employee (including Plaintiff without any warrant, judicially
challengeable subpoena or even any probable cause, and putting any such employee at risk of
losing his job and being judicially sanctioned for failing to immediately obey Defendant Pincus'
direction, deprives Plaintiff of his constitutional fourth amendment right of privacy, and to be
free from unreasonable search and seizure.
41.

Moreover, this has all been done without Plaintiff or any TransPerfect employee

being given even the most basic opportunity to be heard by the Delaware Chancery Court
before the order depriving them of important constitutional rights was entered. The TransPerfect

Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2 Filed 07/26/16 Page 10 of 12

employees do not have a basis to intervene in the TransPerfect Litigation, and do not have
standing to appeal the order.
42.

Plaintiff's constitutional rights therefore have been, and are continuing to be,

violated by Defendants Bouchard and Pincus without due process of law. Absent this action,
Plaintiff has no forum in which to vindicate his constitutional rights.
43.

Defendants have acted, and are acting, under color of state law. Chancellor

Bouchard is an instrumentality of the State of Delaware, and so is Defendant Pincus by virtue of

Chancellor Bouchard's orders purporting to cloak Defendant Pincus with the authority of the
Court. Additionally, Chancellor Bouchard's July 18, 2016 order renders substantial assistance to
Defendant Pincus' unconstitutional conduct.
44.

By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Bouchard and Pincus have acted, and

continue to act, in violation of42 U.S.C. 1983.

45.

Plaintiff desires to exercise his constitutional rights in regard to the future of his

job, career and employer without concern over losing his employment or being judicially
sanctioned.
46.

Plaintiff is irreparably harmed by ongoing deprivation of his constitutional rights.

47.

An actual case and controversy exists between Plaintiff and Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Timothy Holland requests that judgment be entered jointly

against Defendants Andre G. Bouchard and Robert B. Pincus:
A.

Declaring and adjudging that the July 18, 2016 order entered by Defendant

Bouchard is null and void as against the Constitution of the United States insofar as it (i) permits
Defendant Pincus to demand the private property and electronic data belonging to Plaintiff; (ii)
permits Defendant Pincus to terminate Plaintiff's employment for publicly expressing and
10

Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2 Filed 07/26/16 Page 11 of 12

disseminating his views as to the forced sale of TransPerfect; (iii) permits Defendant Pincus to
terminate Plaintiff's employment for petitioning any legislative body or court for redress of his
concerns regarding the forced sale of TransPerfect; (iv) requires Plaintiff to bring claims
regarding TransPerfect only in the Delaware Chancery Court; and (v) subjects Plaintiff to any
sanctions issued by the Delaware Chancery Court;
B.

Forever and permanently enjoining Defendant Bouchard from enforcing any

aspect of his July 18, 2016 order as against Plaintiff, including but not limited to enjoining
Defendant Bouchard from issuing any sanction against Plaintiff and/or from restraining
Plaintiffs access to any Court in these United States;
C.

Forever and permanently enjoining Defendant Pincus from (i) terminating, or in

any way acting as a director to cause the termination of, Plaintiff for his publishing and
disseminating his personal views regarding the forced sale of TransPerfect, or for exercising his
right to petition any legislature or judiciary to redress any grievance regarding the forced sale of
TransPerfect; and/or (ii) obtaining access to and/or demanding production of Plaintiff's personal
electronic devices (including, but limited to, cell phones, computers, tablets and the like) except
by written subpoena challengeable before a court in the State of New York;
D.

The costs and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988; and

E.

Such other, further and different relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: New York, New York

July 25,2016

11

Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2 Filed 07/26/16 Page 12 of 12

GARVEYSGHUBERT BARER

Andrew .Goodman, Esq.(AG-3406)

Attorney for Plaintiff
100 Wall Street, 20t"Floor
,New York 10005
~1~~
(212)965-4534
a~oodman(c~gsblaw.com

12

SHEET
CIVIL COVER
Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document
2-1
Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 2

JS 44C/SDNY
REV. 07/08/16

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 use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.

DEFENDANTS
ANDRE G. BOUCHARD, Chancellor of the State of Delaware and
ROBERT B. PINCUS, as Custodian of TransPerfect Global, Inc.

PLAINTIFFS
TIMOTHY HOLLAND

ATTORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

ATTORNEYS (FIRM NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER

Garvey Schubert Barer (Attn: Andrew J. Goodman, Esq.)
100 Wall Street, 20th Floor, New York, New York 10005
Tel# 212-965-4534

CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FILING AND WRITE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE)
(DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY)

42 USC 1983, 28 USC 2201. Seeking declaratory judgment against judicial officer for due process and First Amendment violations.
Judge Previously Assigned
Has this action, case, or proceeding, or one essentially the same been previously filed in SDNY at any time? No ~ Yes
If yes, was this case Vol.~ Invol. ~ Dismissed. No ~ Yes ~
IS THIS AN INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CASE?

No ~

(PLACE AN(x]IN ONE BOX ONLY)

Yes
NATURE OF SUIT
ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES

TORTS

PERSONAL INJURY

CONTRACT
[ ] 110
[ ] 120
[ ] 130
[ ] 140
[]150

[ j 151
[ ]152

[ ] 153

(]160
[ ]190
[ ]195

[ ] 196

INSURANCE
[ j 310 AIRPLANE
MARINE
[ ]315 AIRPLANE PRODUCT
LIABILITY
MILLER ACT
NEGOTIABLE
(]320 ASSAULT, LIBEL &
SLANDER
INSTRUMENT
RECOVERY OF
[]330 FEDERAL
OVERPAYMENT &
EMPLOYERS'
LIABILITY
ENFORCEMENT
[)340 MARINE
OF JUDGMENT
[ j 345 MARINE PRODUCT
MEDICARE ACT
RECOVERY OF
LIABILITY
DEFAULTED
[ ]350 MOTOR VEHICLE
STUDENT LOANS [ ]355 MOTOR VEHICLE
PRODUCT LIABILITY
(EXCL VETERANS)
RECOVERY OF
[ ] 360 OTHER PERSONAL
INJURY
OVERPAYMENT
OF VETERAN'S
[ ] 362 PERSONAL INJURY MED MALPRACTICE
BENEFITS
STOCKHOLDERS
SUITS
OTHER
CONTRACT
CONTRACT
PRODUCT
ACTIONS UNDER STATUTES
LIABILITY
FRANCHISE
CIVIL RIGHTS

REAL PROPERTY
[ j 210
[]220
~ ]230
[ )240
]245
j ]290

LAND
CONDEMNATION
FORECLOSURE
RENT LEASE &
EJECTMENT
TORTS TO LAND
TORT PRODUCT
LIABILITY
ALL OTHER
REAL PROPERTY

& Case No

If yes, give date

PERSONAL INJURY
[ j 367 HEALTHCARE/
PHARMACEUTICAL PERSONAL
INJURY/PRODUCT LIABILITY
~ ] 365 PERSONAL INJURY
PRODUCT LIABILITY
[ ] 368 ASBESTOS PERSONAL
INJURY PRODUCT
LIABILITY

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

~~ 625 DRUG RELATED

SEIZURE OF PROPERTY
21 USC 881
~ ~ 690 OTHER

]422 APPEAL
28 USC 158
[ )423 WITHDRAWAL
28 USC 157

PROPERTY RIGHTS
[ J 820 COPYRIGHTS
( ]S30 PATENT
840 TRADEMARK

PERSONAL PROPERTY
[ ]370 OTHER FRAUD
( ] 371 TRUTH IN LENDING

SOCIAL SECURITY

[ ]861 HIA (1395ff)

( ]380 OTHER PERSONAL
LABOR
[ ]S62 BLACK LUNG (923)
PROPERTY DAMAGE
[ ]710 FAIR LABOR
( ]863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
[ ] 385 PROPERTY DAMAGE
PRODUCT LIABILITY
[ )864 SSID TITLE XVI
STANDARDS ACT
[ ] 720 LABOR/MGMT
[ j 865 RSI (405(g))
RELATIONS
PRISONER PETITIONS
ACT
[ ] 740 RAILWAY LABOR
[ ]463 ALIEN DETAINEE
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
(]510 MOTIONS TO
[ J 751 FAMILY MEDICAL
VACATE SENTENCE
LEAVE ACT (FMLA)
[ ]870 TAXES (U.S. Plaintiff or
28 USC 2255
Defendant)
[ ] 790 OTHER LABOR
[ ] 530 HABEAS CORPUS
IITiGATION
[ ]871 IRS-THIRD PARTY
[ ] 535 DEATH PENALTY
26 USC 7609
540 MANDAMUS &OTHER [ ] 791 EMPL RET WC
~ 440 OTHER CIVIL RIGHTS ~ 1
SECURITY ACT (FRIBA
(Non-Prisoner)

( )441 VOTING
[ ]442 EMPLOYMENT
[ ] 443 HOUSING/
ACCOMMODATIONS
( J 445 AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES EMPLOYMENT
[ j 446 AMERICANS WITN
DISABILITIES -OTHER
[ J 448 EDUCATION

IMMIGRATION
PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS
[ J 462 NATURALIZATION
APPLICATION
[ J 550 CIVIL RIGHTS
[ ]555 PRISON CONDITION
(]465 OTHER IMMIGRATION
[ j 560 CIVIL DETAINEE
ACTIONS
CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT

OTHER STATUTES
[ ]375 FALSE CLAIMS
[ ]376 QUI TAM
( ]400 STATE
REAPPORTIONMENT
[ J 410 ANTITRUST
[ J 430 BANKS &BANKING
[ j 450 COMMERCE
( j 460 DEPORTATION
( ]470 RACKETEER INFIUENCED &CORRUPT
ORGANIZATION ACT
(RICO)
[ J 480 CONSUMER CREDIT
[ ]490 CABLE/SATELLITE N
( ]850 SECURITIES/
COMMODITIES/
EXCHANGE

[ j 890 OTHER STATUTORY

ACTIONS
( ]891 AGRICULTURAL ACTS

[ ]893 ENVIRONMENTAL
MATTERS
[ J 895 FREEDOM OF
INFORMATION ACT
(] 896 ARBITRATION
[ ] 899 ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURE ACT/REVIEW OR
APPEAL OF AGENCY DECISION
[ ] 950 CONSTITUTIONALITY OF
STATE STATUTES

Check if demanded in complaint:

CHECK IF THIS IS ACLASS ACTION

UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $

OTHER

Check YES only if demanded in complaint

JURY DEMAND: YES X10

DO YOU CLAIM THIS CASE IS RELATED TO A CIVIL CASE NOW PENDING IN S.D.N.Y.
AS DEFINED BY LOCAL RULE FOR DIVISION OF BUSINESS 13?
IF SO, STATE:
JUDGE

DOCKET NUMBER

NOTE: You must also submit at the time of filing the Statement of Relatedness form (Form IH-32).

Case 1:16-cv-05936-VSB Document 2-1 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 2

(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)

1
X

Origina~
Proceeding

~ 2 Removed from
State Court

8, all parties represented

from
Appellate
Court

5 Transferred from 6
(Specify District)

Reopened

Multidistrict
Litigation
(Transferred)

to District

7 Appeal
Judge from

Magistrate Judge

~$ Multidistrict Litigation (Direct File)

b. At least one party

is pro se.

(PLACE AN x IN ONE BOX ONLY)

1 U.S. PLAINTIFF

ORIGIN
4 Reinstated or

~g Remanded

IF DIVERSITY, INDICATE

BASIS OF JURISDICTION

2 U.S. DEFENDANT

X 3 FEDERAL QUESTION

CITIZENSHIP BELOW.

4 DIVERSITY

(U.S. NOT A PARTY)

CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(FOR DIVERSITY CASES ONLY)

(Place an [X] in one box for Plaintiff and one box for Defendant)
PTF
[)1

CITIZEN OF THIS STATE

DEF
[ ]1

PTF DEF
[ ]3[ ]3

CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF A
FOREIGN COUNTRY
INCORPORATED or PRINCIPAL PLACE
OF BUSINESS IN THIS STATE

CITIZEN OF ANOTHER STATE [ ]2 [ J 2

[)4[ ]4

INCORPORATED and PRINCIPAL PLACE

OF BUSINESS IN ANOTHER STATE
FOREIGN NATION

PTF DEF
[ ]5 [ j 5
[ j 6 [ ]6

PLAINTIFFS) ADDRESSES) AND COUNTY(IES)

560 Baltic Street,

Brooklyn, New York 11217

DEFENDANTS) ADDRESSES)AND COUNTY(IES)

1. Andrew G. Bouchard, Chancellor

Chancery Court of the State of Delaware
2. Robert B. Pincus, c/o Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &Flom
One Rodney Square 920 N. King Street, Wilmington, Delaware 19801
DEFENDANTS) ADDRESS UNKNOWN
REPRESENTATION IS HEREBY MADE THAT, AT THIS TIME, I HAVE BEEN UNABLE, WITH REASONABLE DILIGENCE, TO ASCERTAIN
THE RESIDENCE ADDRESSES OF THE FOLLOWING DEFENDANTS:

COURTHOUSE ASSIGNMENT
hereby certify that this case should be assigned to the courthouse indicated below pursuant to Local Rule for Division of Business 18, 20 or 21.
DO NOT check either box if this is a PRISONER PETITION/PRISONER CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT.
Check one:

THIS ACTT

SATE 07/25/16

g~

H ULD BE ASSIGNED TO:

OF

WHITE PLAINS

ORNEY OF RECORD

RECEIPT #

Magistrate Judge is to

x MANHATTAN

ADMITTED TO PRACTICE IN THIS DISTRICT

[]NO
Yr. ~ 979
[~ YES(DATE ADMITTED Mo.
Attorney Bar Code #AG-3406

designated by the Clerk of the Court.

is so Designated.

Magistrate Judge
Ruby J. Krajick, Clerk of Court by

Deputy Clerk, DATED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT(NEW YORK SOUTHERN)