Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
Page Nos.
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES......................................................................................................................ii
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT................................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT..............................................................................................................................................4
II. The Amended Complaint States Claims Pursuant To The TCP A.......................................11
III. The Amended Complaint States Pleads Fraud and Negligent Misrepresentation..................12
CONCLUSION 18
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
InventHelp Defendants’ objections to Magistrate Judge Mitchell’s January 3, 2019 Report and
Recommendation (ECF 48) (“Report and Recommendation”). Plaintiff respectfully requests that
Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference her October 24, 2018 submissions in
opposition to the InventHelp Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF 36) in their entirety.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
leaves no stone unturned, conducting an in-depth analysis of all pertinent issues. As such,
Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court overrule the InventHelp Defendants’ objections.
The gravamen of this case is the InventHelp Defendants’ deliberate and blatant violation
of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (“AIPA”), 35 U.S.C. § 297. As detailed in the
Amended Complaint, InventHelp, and its attached “finance company,” Universal Payment
memorandum of law are just a sampling of the shocking fraud in which InventHelp is engaged.
Put simply - this is not a case about a disappointed inventor’s one-in-a-million shot at success;
this is a case about a company built completely upon lies and fraud, with absolutely no
legitimacy whatsoever.
1 Abbreviations used herein are those defined in Plaintiff s October 24, 2018 Memorandum in
Opposition to the InventHelp Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (ECF 36).
The InventHelp Defendants’ primary arguments relating to the AIPA and tort claims -
that the Amended Complaint fails to allege false statements, that those statements are immaterial,
and that it was unreasonable for Plaintiff to rely upon them - are laughable. (InventHelp Dels.’
First and foremost, the Amended Complaint alleges that all of the InventHelp
or any other entity, are outright lies, 24, 61-62, 63, 94-99, 123, 133(a), 145, 146, 178, 179,
194). Given that these are federally-mandated disclosures, they are ipso facto material and
Plaintiff was entitled to rely upon them as a matter of law. Importantly, because the false
disclosures are contained in the very same contracts that contain InventHelp’s disclaimers and
Defendants’ other false statements - including dates of telephone calls and meetings, the names
of the various InventHelp representatives, content of voluminous false statements and omissions,
and dated correspondence containing additional misstatements. 52, 53, 55, 56, 63, 67, 69,
72, 73, 81, 83, 84, 111, 112, 113, 114,117, 178, 179, 180-188).
The Amended Complaint also alleges that InventHelp’s business platform and sales pitch
on the whole are fraudulent, by virtue of fictional company lists concocted by InventHelp to
create the false impression that InventHelp has “relationships” with “companies looking for new
ideas.” (^[ 90, 91, 92, 100, 101, 102, 103, 109, 179, 182). In fact, not only are these companies
oftentimes works of pure fiction, InventHelp also has no mechanism to follow up with any
company that may express interest in an idea - companies on InventHelp’s “Data Bank” and
“database” lists (to the extent some of the entities actually exist) are given no means to contact
2
InventHelp other than the 1-800 telephone number on InventHelp’s late night television
InventHelp’s business model on the whole is built upon fraudulent inducement. The
introductory step - the less expensive Basic Information Package - is a con: “although
purporting to be an end in itself, in truth and in fact the Basic Information Package is part of
Defendants’ ploy to convince consumers that their inventions are marketable, and con them into
signing contracts for the more expensive Submission Services.” 81). Indeed, Ms. Calhoun
meeting to go over her Basic Information Package results; a meeting ultimately took place, and
its true purpose and result was to pressure Ms. Calhoun into spending close to $10,000 on
“Submission Services.” (f|82-84). Part of that pressure consisted of a false claim that
InventHelp was wrapping up a “special offer” where Ms. Calhoun could save $1,000 if she
Long story short and $11,000 later, after years of paperwork sent by InventHelp giving
the false impression that it was disseminating her idea to third-party companies, Ms. Calhoun
Sadly, her story is not unique - InventHelp has scammed tens of thousands of aspiring
The Report and Recommendation properly characterizes this case as one for violation of
the AIPA and fraud, and Plaintiff thus respectfully requests that this Court overrule InventHelp’s
objections.
3
FACTS
Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference the “Facts” section of its Memorandum of
Law in Opposition to the InventHelp Defendants’ motion to dismiss (EOF 36 at pp. 3-7), as well
as the thorough recitation set forth in the Report and Recommendation at 3-10.
ARGUMENT
There can be no question that the Report and Recommendation correctly found that the
Amended Complaint states claims pursuant to the AIPA. (ECF 48 pp. 23-29; see ECF 36 pp.8
13).
The American Inventors Protection Act of 1999, 35 U.S.C. § 297, prohibits two different
• Subsection (a) requires detailed disclosure of the number of customers with whom the
invention promoter has contracted in the past 5 years, as well as detailed disclosure of
the total number of customers known by the invention promoter to have received
license agreements and/or a net financial profit “as a direct result of the invention
promotion services provided by such invention promoter” (35 U.S.C. § 297(a)(1)-
(4)); and
• Subsection (b) prohibits invention promotion firms from making “false or fraudulent”
statements , representations or omissions of material fact,” (35 U.S.C. § 297(b)(1)).
The Report and Recommendation correctly found that the Amended Complaint
2 Subsections (a) and (b) of the AIPA each provide stand-alone grounds for claims under this
statute. (ECF 48 at p. 25).
4
A. The Amended Complaint Alleges False Disclosures Pursuant to the AIPA
As to Subsection (a), InventHelp argues that the seemingly disparate disclosures detailed
in the Amended Complaint are on behalf of two different entities - InventHelp and Western
InventHelp - and, as such, are in compliance with the AIPA. This argument fails.
First and foremost, the Amended Complaint alleges that all disclosures, be they on behalf
of InventHelp, Western InventHelp, or any other entity, are false. (ffl[ 24, 63, 94-99, 123, 133(a),
145, 178, 179,194). Allegations far less detailed than those set forth in the instant Amended
Complaint have been held sufficient by courts examining this very issue. See Wynn v. Davison
Design &Dev’t, Inc., 2010 WL 891905, *7-8 (S.D. Ala. 2010)(complaint stated claim pursuant
to AIPA where it simply alleged “to the extent any disclosure was made ... such information
was inaccurate, false and misleading); Dungee v. Davison Design & Dev % Inc., Civ. Action No.
10-325 GMS (D. Del.,2010)) (ECF No. 36 at Ex. E 20 (“upon information and belief, to the
extent any AIPA disclosures were made by Davison with respect to the preceding paragraphs,
such information was incomplete, inaccurate, false and misleading”) and Ex. F (District Court’s
Second, as noted by the Report and Recommendation at 24-25, if each disclosure was for
a stand-alone entity and the numbers could somehow be reconciled (a mathematical miracle),
Western InventHelp omitted from its disclosures (ECF No. 30, Exs. C and E) the number of
customers who received license agreements, and this alone constitutes a violation of the AIPA.
See 35 U.S.C. §294(a)(4) (“An invention promoter shall have a duty to disclose ... the total
5
number of customers known by the invention promoter to have received license agreements for
their inventions”).3
So too with Technosystems Service Corp. If, as InventHelp contends, each InventHelp
entity working on her behalf was to provide Ms. Calhoun its own specific disclosure numbers,
then, pursuant to Etta’s Submission Agreement, Technosystems should have done so as well, as
the Submission Agreement explicitly states that Etta was contracting with InventHelp, Western
InventHelp, and Technosystems Service Corp. flj 88; ECF No. 30 Ex. D at 5,113). Etta
Third, the Amended Complaint quotes from a variety of InventHelp disclosures that do
in fact contradict one another. (See 94-99). Whether or not InventHelp’s disclosures are
internally consistent is a question of fact. The face of the Amended Complaint certainly pleads
that the disclosures are inconsistent, false and misleading. This is more than sufficient to allege
allegations of false statements are “conclusory” and fail to “explain why those statements were
Again, the Amended Complaint alleges that all of the figures in the InventHelp
Defendants’ federally-mandated disclosures are false and fraudulent. (%^| 24, 63, 94-99, 123,
3 Of
note, those 2012 and 2013 disclosures state that they are on behalf of “INVENTION
DEVELOPER,” further obfuscating this issue. (ECF No. 30 at Exs. C and E).
6
133(a), 145, 178,179,194). These disclosures are required by the AIPA, and as such they are
ipso facto material and Plaintiff was entitled to rely upon them as a matter of law.
Defendants’ false statements - including exact dates of telephone calls and in-person meetings,
the names of the various InventHelp representatives, the content of voluminous false statements
and omissions, and dated correspondence containing additional misstatements. fflj50, 52, 53, 55,
56, 63, 67, 69, 72, 73, 81, 83, 84, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 178, 179, 180-188).
Importantly, the Amended Complaint alleges that InventHelp’s entire business model is
fact the Basic Information Package is part of Defendants’ ploy to convince consumers that their
inventions are marketable, and con them into signing contracts for the more expensive
After seeing a television advertisement for InventHelp, on February 18, 2012 Ms.
Calhoun met with InventHelp representative Renee Hopes in Pearland Texas, who suggested an
“add on” to her invention - a “listening device” to play audio recordings of the Bible verses.
(|56). Unbeknownst to Ms. Calhoun, InventHelp suggested this “add on” to increase the amount
of money it could charge her, not because it would render her idea more profitable. 57). This
practice accords with a June 18, 1999 letter from a former InventHelp patent attorney to the
United States Patent & Trademark Office stating that he was instructed “to make non-patentable
7
After paying $780 for the Basic Information Package, Ms. Calhoun was repeatedly
her Basic Information Package results; while a meeting ultimately took place, it’s true purpose
and result was to pressure Ms. Calhoun into spending close to $10,000 on “Submission
Services.” (Hf82-84). Part of that pressure consisted of a false claim that InventHelp was
wrapping up a “special offer” where Ms. Calhoun could save $1,000 if she signed that very day.
Additionally, the Amended Complaint alleges that InventHelp’s business platform and
sales pitch on the whole are fraudulent, by virtue of fictional third-party lists of companies .
concocted by InventHelp to create the impression that InventHelp has “relationships” with
“companies looking for new ideas.” (H[ 90, 91, 92, 100, 101, 102, 103, 109, 179, 182). In fact,
not only are these companies oftentimes works of pure fiction, InventHelp also has no
mechanism to follow up with any company that may express interest in an idea - companies on
InventHelp’s “Data Bank” and “database” lists (to the extent some actually exist) are given no
means to contact InventHelp other than the 1-800 telephone number on InventHelp’s late night
4 For example, the Amended Complaint alleges, “[b]y letter dated April 23, 2014, Ms.
Calhoun received a letter from InventHelp stating that a brochure describing her invention “was
mailed to the companies on the enclosed report listed as ‘Data Bank.’” (1J100). “Attached to that
letter is a list of 20 “Data Bank” companies.” (Id.). InventHelp sent Ms. Calhoun another letter
dated March 8, 2016, also asserting that a brochure describing her invention “was mailed to the
companies on the enclosed report listed as ‘Data Bank.’” (^f 113; see ECF 36 Ex. A). The
Amended Complaint alleges: “this list of Data Bank companies, and Data Bank company lists
sent to all InventHelp customers, are shams. Some of the companies do not exist and are
purposefully misspelled to resemble actual existing companies that have no relationship with
InventHelp (for example, listing the company as “Inc.” instead of “EEC”). Other “Data Bank”
companies claim to have no relationship with InventHelp, and have not signed any
confidentiality agreements, or any agreements whatsoever, with InventHelp. Upon information
8
Unsurprisingly, InventHelp points to a litany of disclaimers in its various contracts.
However, the Amended Complaint alleges that the disclosures and statements made in those very
same contracts about InventHelp’s customers’ success rates and licensing agreements are all
In short, InventHelp’s argument that its misstatements and omissions were not material
and/or that Etta Calhoun should not have reasonably relied upon them is absurd.
Magistrate Mitchell and the parties agree that the four-year statute of limitations set forth in
Plaintiff filed this suit on June 1, 2018. (ECF 1). Thus, Plaintiff would have had to have
been on notice of her claims before June 1,2014 for this case to be time-barred. The Amended
Complaint specifically alleges (and documentary evidence proves) that InventHelp sent Plaintiff
letters dated December 10, 2015 and March 8, 2016 falsely asserting InventHelp’s continuing
work on her behalf. ffill2, 113; ECF 36 Exs B and A). These letters defeat the InventHelp
Defendants’ statute of limitations argument as a matter of law (or, at the very least, create an
For example, the letter dated March 8, 2016 states, “Your New Product Submission Brochure
was mailed to the companies on the enclosed report listed as ‘Data Bank’ . . . . We will inform
and belief, some of the companies are sham companies and/or are affiliated with InventHelp.” (^|
101); see (^J113) (“InventHelp does not have relationships with these companies, these
companies did not sign nondisclosure agreements with InventHelp, and, to the extent some of
these companies actually exist, none of these companies have ever licensed a product from
InventHelp and/or Intromark.”).
9
you of any inquiries we may receive as a result of our submission efforts.” (ECF 36 Ex. A; f
113). That letter contains a list of 50 companies. The Amended Complaint alleges, "InventHelp
does not have relationships with these companies, these companies did not sign nondisclosure
agreements with InventHelp, and, to the extent some of these companies actually exist, none of
these companies have ever licensed a product from InventHelp and/or IntroMark.” 113). Etta,
however, did not know this, nor was she given any reason to suspect this, flfff 114-115).
The Intromark Proposal, dated August 2, 2013, states that it “shall remain in effect for a
period of twenty-four (24) months. This will automatically renew for an additional three years
unless terminated in writing by Client upon thirty (30) days’ written notice prior to the expiration
of the original term of this Agreement.” 104; ECF 30, Ex. F at 1, % 3). Thus, the Intromark
Proposal remained in full force and effect for five (5) years, until August 2, 2018.
The InventHelp Defendants argue that Plaintiff should have been on notice of its
malfeasance as of August 2013 when she received the second set of the InventHelp Defendants’
false and misleading disclosures. However, the InventHelp Defendant’s own argument (that
those disclosures are presented in such a way that they appear to be on behalf of different
InventHelp entities) defeats their proposition that these should have put Etta on notice of fraud.
For the reasons set forth herein, those in the Report and Recommendation (ECF 48 at pp. 42
43), and those elucidated in Plaintiffs October 24, 2018 Memorandum in Opposition to the
InventHelp Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF 36 at pp. 31-34), the Amended Complaint’s
detailed allegations suffice to defeat the InventHelp Defendants’ statute of limitations challenge.
See Niiaryee v. Davidson Design &Dev’t, 2018 WL 1072439, *3-4 (rejecting dismissal on
statute of limitations grounds and holding, “the Court cannot conclude, based solely on the
allegations in the Complaint, that the remainder of Plaintiff s claims are time-barred. ...
10
Although Defendant argues that Plaintiff should have been on notice of potential ‘storm
warnings’ in 2009, when he received the first rejection from a target company, there is no
indication in the Complaint that Plaintiff knew, or should have known, any time prior to March
2014 [when he received an incorrect rendering of his invention] that Defendant was not
marketing his concept.”); Dungee v. Davison Design & Dev’t, Civil Action No. 10-325 GMS,
Order dated March 29, 2001 (“The court will not determine the merits of defendant’s statute of
limitations defense at this early stage in the proceedings, since there are numerous disputes of
material fact that may affect the court’s decision.” (Plitt Affi Ex. F); Fine v. Checcio, D.D.S., 582
Pa. 253, 275 (Pa. 2005) (doctrine of fraudulent concealment tolling statute of limitations is a
question of fact); DeTello v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 410 F.3d 1275, 1288 (11th Cir. 2005)
(“Dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on statute of limitations grounds is
appropriate only if it is apparent from the face of the complaint that the claim is time-barred. At
the motion to dismiss stage, a complaint maybe dismissed on the basis of a statute of limitations
defense only if it appears beyond a doubt that Plaintiffs can prove no set of facts that toll the
statute.”)
The Report and Recommendation correctly holds that Plaintiff has adequately pled a
The Amended Complaint alleges that the InventHelp Defendants called Etta Calhoun’s
cell phone repeatedly after being told to cease and desist, and that it used automatic telephone
dialing systems to do so. (If 116,169). These allegations are enough to withstand a motion to
11
III. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT PLEADS FRAUD AND NEGLIGENT
MISREPRESENTATION
The InventHelp Defendants’ next argument boils down to a single point - that the
dizzying array of disclaimers and integration clauses in their various contracts bar Plaintiffs
fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. The Report and Recommendation (ECF 48 at pp.
First and foremost, the Amended Complaint alleges that all of InventHelp’s numbers
regarding customers’ success rates were knowingly false - an integration clause cannot protect
InventHelp from fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims stemming from those outright lies
about InventHelp’s success rate that are contained in these very same contracts that contain the
Second, the Amended Complaint alleges fraudulent inducement by virtue of the Basic
Information Package and fictional Data Bank lists. It alleges that InventHelp made various
misrepresentations and omissions regarding then-existing facts about third parties in order to con
Ms. Calhoun into signing the contracts. Thus, the integration clauses are inapplicable. See
Boardakctn Rest, LLC v. Gordon Group Holdings, LLC, 2015 WL 4597970, *9 (E.D.P.A. 2015).
The Amended Complaint states: “Although purporting to be an end in itself, in truth and
in fact the Basic Information Package is part of Defendants’ ploy to convince consumers that
their inventions are marketable, and con them into signing contracts for the more expensive
Submission Services.” (f 81). After seeing a television advertisement for InventHelp, Ms.
Calhoun met with an InventHelp representative, who suggested an “add on” to her invention - a
“listening device” to play audio recordings of the Bible verses. fl|56). Unbeknownst to Ms.
Calhoun, InventHelp suggested this “add on” to increase the amount of money it could charge
12
her. (| 57). This practice accords with a June 18, 1999 letter from a former InventHelp patent
attorney to the United States Patent & Trademark Office stating that he was instructed “to make
Ms. Calhoun is a religious woman and is of modest means. ffl22, 48, 66). After
financing $780 for the Basic Information Package, Ms. Calhoun was repeatedly telephoned by
Package results. (fj[82-84) She repeatedly told InventHelp that the $ 10,000 Submission
Services were far out of her price range. (](% 65, 66, 69, 70, 73, 85). Nevertheless, InventHelp
representatives incessantly hounded her and falsely pumped up the potential profitability of her
idea, and Ms. Calhoun ultimately capitulated and financed the exorbitant sum through
InventHelp Defendant Universal Payment Corporation. (ffl[ 67, 69, 70, 71, 73, 82, 83, 84, 86).
Part of that pressure consisted of a false claim that InventPIelp was wrapping up a “special offer”
where Ms. Calhoun could save $1,000 if she signed that very day. (fl84-87, see 21-22).
Third, if a party “contends that [s]he executed agreements because [s]he was defrauded
by being led to believe that the document contained terms that actually were omitted,” then an
integration clause does not bar fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims. Youndt v. First
Nat’l Bank of Port Allegany, 868 A.2d 539, 546 (Pa. Super. 2005). Here, the Amended
Complaint alleges just that: “If and when Class Plaintiffs express questions or concerns about
forfeiting any legal rights that they may have, Defendants’ deceptively point out provisions in
the purported contracts that appear to retain Class Plaintiffs’ rights, while hiding those
provisions that seek to vanquish those same rights.” 156). See 120 (“Defendants also
13
fraudulently misrepresent the actual content of the contracts between Defendants and Class
Plaintiffs, thereby tricking Class Plaintiffs into signing documents that state different terms and
represent that if Class Plaintiffs can no longer make payments, then there is “no risk” - the
contracts will simply expire with no further performance on either end. However, if and when
Class Plaintiffs stop paying, Defendants dog Class Plaintiffs, threaten to “destroy” Plaintiffs’
credit and threaten to put liens on their homes and other personal property.”)
Fourth, the absurdity of InventHelp’s argument is apparent - Etta signed the Submission
Agreement and Intromark Proposal on the same day and time, at the same meeting, and with the
same signatory on behalf of all entities. (See ECF 30 Exs. D and F.) Each of these contracts
that the company itself made no separation between the various entities contained therein, and
that it seems to go out of its way to confuse and intimidate consumers with its multiple contracts.
For example, by letter dated December 10, 2015, on InventHelp letterhead, InventHelp stated:
“Beginning now, in accordance with your Intromark Proposal, we will continue to follow up
with any company who may express an interest in your invention as a result of our efforts for 3
additional years.” (% 112; ECF 36 Aff. Ex. B). Then, by letter dated March 8, 2016, InventHelp,
on its own letterhead stated, “We are pleased to report our efforts on your behalf. Your New
Product Submission Brochure was mailed to the companies on the enclosed report...”) (^ 113,
ECF 36 Ex. A). Flowever, the Submission Agreement signed by Etta Calhoun was with Western
InventHelp, (ECF 30 Ex. D). That contract states that “The expected date of completion of
14
development services under this Contract is twenty-four months.” (EOF 30 Ex. D at p. 5, Tfl7).
It is the Intromark Proposal that provides for an additional three years of service. (ECF 30 Ex. F
InventHelp letterhead. (ECF 36 Ex. B). Moreover, Etta signed a “Retail Installment Contract”
with Universal Payment Corporation, but her payments thereto were charged on her credit card
by “Techno InventHelp.” 67-68). The Submission Agreement itself explicitly states that
InventHelp, Western InventHelp, and Technosystems Services Corp. are all performing under
In fact, a single individual, InventHelp representative Joy Flinson, signed separate contracts
on behalf of Western InventHelp (ECF 30 Ex. D at 7), Intromark Incorporated (ECF 30 Ex. F at
3) and InventHelp (ECF 36 Ex. C) at the August 2 meeting with Etta Calhoun. Likewise,
InventHelp (ECF 30 Ex. A at 2) and InventHelp (ECF 30 Ex. B) at the February 18 meeting with
Etta Calhoun.
In sum, the Amended Complaint paints a clear picture - InventHelp’s entire business model
is a fraud, it purposefully lies, confuses and bewilders customers (including Ms. Calhoun), and
these tort claims must stand. See Hemphill v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, 2018 WL 4929864,
*10 (E.D.Pa. 2018); Toy v. Metro. Life Ins.. Co., 928 A.2d 186, 208 (Pa. 2007)/ 5
5 As if this was not bad enough, the Amended Complaint details fraud above and beyond
these outright lies: “after years of inaction, the InventHelp Defendants reappear to Class
Plaintiffs, sometimes in the guise of distribution, marketing or manufacturing companies, and
other times as representatives of InventHelp, falsely claiming that they have purchase orders,
licensing agreements, and/or retail distributors at the ready. After scamming more money from
Plaintiffs, they disappear without a trace.” (ffl7-18).
15
IV. THE AMENDED COMPLAINT PLEADS BREACH OF CONTRACT
Calhoun had no way of knowing that the InventHelp Defendants breached their contracts with
her before June 1, 2014 - she believed that the letters, statements, and Data Bank lists from
InventHelp were legitimate. Likewise, although she was extremely distressed in August 2014
upon receipt of InventHelp’s DVD rendering of her Word of God Bedding, she called
InventHelp and was assured by an InventHelp representative that her invention was purposefully
presented in an unattractive light because , otherwise, “someone could steal your idea.” (f 111).
Etta took InventHelp at its word - after all, she thought, InventHelp were experts in the field, and
Undisputed documentary evidence shows that as of March 8, 2016, Etta believed, and
was explicitly led to believe by virtue of InventHelp’s letters and representations, that
InventHelp was fulfilling its contractual obligations to her. 113-14, ECF 36 Ex. A). In truth,
InventHelp was doing nothing more than generating paperwork to create this false impression
6 Incidentally,
August 2014 falls within the four-year statute of limitations so even if the Court
were to use this as the ‘notice date,’ the claims would not be time-barred.
16
V. THE INVENTHELP DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE IS
FRIVOLOUS
The Report and Recommendation correctly found the motion to strike to be without
merit. (ECF48pp. 44-45). For those reasons, together with those in Plaintiff s October 24,
17
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein, together with those in Plaintiffs papers in opposition to
the InventHelp Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF 36), and those set forth in Magistrate
Mitchell’s January 3, 2019 Report and Recommendation (ECF 48), Plaintiff respectfully requests
By:
JUI SKY PLITT, ESQ.
Bar
120 Bloomingdale Road, Suite 100
White Plains, New York 10605
(914) 422-3900
(914) 422-3636 (Fax)
inlitt@oxmanlaw. com
18