Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


January 17, 1990


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edelstein, District Judge:


These rulings arise in response to three separate motions by the Government asking this Court to issue extraordinary writs by its powers under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to enjoin collateral suits filed by IBT members, locals, joint councils, and area conferences (the "subordinate entities") — in sister United States District Courts in other judicial districts — which attempt to litigate matters relating to the Consent Decree. These actions, arising in Chicago, Illinois, Cleveland, Ohio, and Newark, New Jersey, (together, the "collateral lawsuits") involve actions which either seek relief from rulings issued by this Court in relation to the implementation of the Consent Decree or a delineation of a subordinate entity's rights under the Consent Decree.

The Government, in sum, seeks to have this Court enjoin all lawsuits which seek to litigate issues arising under the Consent Decree filed in any forum other than the Southern District of New York. This request would serve the purpose of channeling all such litigation to this forum. The Government also asks this Court to compel the withdrawal of pending collateral lawsuits. The Government further seeks a definitive determination from this Court binding all subordinate entities to the Consent Decree.

This Court has entered and extended a temporary restraining order pursuant to the All Writs Act and Rule 65(b) enjoining any subordinate entity from prosecuting any existing collateral lawsuit or filing any new collateral suit which seeks to adjudicate matters relating to the Consent Decree in any district other than before this Court. This Court has received submissions from almost half of the 700 subordinate entities opposing this injunction and vehemently denying that they are bound by the Consent Decree. Since this injunction is necessary "in aid of" this Court's jurisdiction over a nationwide litigation with unique circumstances, the Government's request for a permanent injunction is granted.

I. The Current Litigation

Since taking effect the Consent Decree has engendered a flow of dispute and discord between the Government, the IBT, and the Court Officers appointed to the positions the Consent Decree created. Despite the constant undercurrent of displeasure with the Consent Decree by the IBT, the recent actions by subordinate entities seeking independent adjudication of related matters have created an eruption of litigation unprecedented even by the warped standards practiced by the IBT in this case.

A. The Chicago, Cleveland, and New Jersey Suits

The first suit filed was on November 17, 1989 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Chicago suit") captioned Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers et al. v. Michael H. Holland, Election Officer, No. 89 Civ. 8577 (N.D.Ill.) by a number of Chicago, Illinois area IBT Locals and their officers, (the "Chicago plaintiffs").*fn2 On November 21, 1989, the Government presented and this Court signed an order requiring the Chica- go plaintiffs to appear before this Court at a hearing held November 27, 1989 and show cause why (1) an injunction should not be entered by this Court enjoining the Chicago plaintiffs from prosecuting the Chicago suit, and (2) Chicago plaintiff Daniel Ligurotis, a signatory to the Consent Decree, should not be adjudged in contempt of the permanent injunction at ¶ E.10 of the Consent Decree for obstructing and interfering with the work of the Election Officer (the "Chicago order to show cause").

In sum, the Chicago suit alleges that the actions Election Officer Michael Holland intends to take with regard to supervising the IBT's 1991 election and the initial local elections for delegates to the 1991 Convention have overstepped bounds set by the IBT Constitution. This overall allegation is buttressed by claims that provisions in ¶ F.12(D) of the Consent Decree impermissibly amend the IBT Constitution. The Chicago plaintiffs further charge that the Memorandum and Order of this Court dated October 18, 1989 (the "October 18, 1989 Opinion") contravenes the IBT Constitution.

The real gist of the Chicago plaintiffs' allegations is that the Consent Decree and its interpretation in this Court's October 18, 1989 Opinion granted both the International IBT and the GEB too much power to alter the IBT Constitution, and upset the delicate federalism that governs relations between the International IBT and its hundreds of subordinate entities. The Chicago plaintiffs, save Daniel Ligurotis, were uninvolved in the original suit and, they claim, neither explicit signatories nor implicit assentors to the Consent Decree. The Chicago plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment immunizing themselves from submitting to the strictures of the Consent Decree, namely electoral reform resulting in democratic secret ballot elections.

The Chicago order to show cause required all parties to the Chicago suit to appear at a hearing on November 27, 1989. On November 27, 1989, Counsel for Ligurotis appeared, and the other plaintiffs in the Chicago suit defaulted. On November 27, 1989, this Court issued a preliminary injunction pursuant to its inherent power under the All Writs Act enjoining all of the plaintiffs in the Chicago suit from taking any further actions in connection with that suit except filing a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or responding to motions made by the defendant in the Chicago suit. On November 29, 1989, the Chicago plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which dropped Consent Decree signatory Daniel Ligurotis as a plaintiff, and withdrew counts with connections to the Southern District of New York.

On December 8, 1989, this Court held a factual hearing on the contempt portion of the Chicago order to show cause. At that hearing, Chicago plaintiff Daniel Ligurotis was required to refute testamentary and affidavit evidence offered by the Government as to why his involvement as a Chicago plaintiff would not constitute civil contempt in violation of the permanent injunction located at ¶ E.10 of the Consent Decree against interference with the work of the Court Officers.

In a Memorandum & Opinion dated December 12, 1989 (the "December 12, 1989 Opinion"), this Court deemed Daniel Ligurotis in civil contempt, and further found Ligurotis had the ability to cause the withdrawal of the Chicago suit by virtue of his leadership positions in the IBT and uncontroverted testimony. 726 F. Supp. 943, 948-50. This Court then sanctioned Ligurotis (1) for the reasonable costs that the Government and Court Officers incurred responding to the Chicago suit, and (2) an amount set at $125 on Friday, December 15, 1989, and doubling daily until the withdrawal of the entire Chicago suit with prejudice, but not to exceed $512,000. Ligurotis subsequently appealed the contempt finding and penalty to the Court of Appeals, which stayed the penalties and granted an expedited appeal.

The second action involved Local 507 President and Consent Decree Signee Harold Friedman. Friedman filed a motion before the Judge White of the Northern District of Ohio — who sentenced Friedman in his criminal conviction in United States v. Friedman, 86 Cr. 114 (N.D.Oh.) — for an order preventing the Independent Administrator from hearing charges against Friedman (the "Cleveland motion"). Friedman presented the motion as an order to show cause why a temporary restraining order should not be issued obligating the Court Officers to abide by the stay of his sentence issued by Judge White while his appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit pends.

On December 6, 1989, the Government presented this Court with an order directing Local 507 and Friedman to show cause why an order should not be entered (1) preventing any further action in the Cleveland suit and the Cleveland motion, and (2) holding Friedman in contempt of court (the "Cleveland order to show cause"). In addition, a temporary restraining order was sought enjoining Local 507 from taking any further action in the Cleveland suit, and preventing Friedman from taking any further action in connection with the Cleveland motion. At 4:15 p.m. on December 6, 1989, while considering the Cleveland order to show cause, this Court was informed that Local 507 had submitted its own motion for a temporary restraining order to Judge Aldrich in Cleveland. Upon this Court's signing of the Cleveland order to show cause and temporary restraining order, Judge Aldrich returned Local 507's order unsigned. On December 7, 1989, this Court issued a further order commanding Friedman to withdraw the Cleveland motion.

Summarily, the Cleveland actions sought relief for the President of Local 507, Harold Friedman, and its recording secretary, Anthony Hughes ("Friedman and Hughes") from facing charges filed by the Investigations Officer that would remove them from their positions as leaders of Local 507. The Cleveland suit charged that the Consent Decree and its subsequent interpretations that allow the Court Officers to pursue removal of Friedman and Hughes represented a breach of the contract between Local 507 and the International IBT, namely the IBT Constitution. The Cleveland motion more obviously sought to expand the stay issued in the criminal case and prevent any action which might result in Friedman's removal.

A hearing was held on Friday, December 8, 1989, to determine whether the temporary restraining order entered on December 6, 1989 should be continued as a preliminary injunction. Both Local 507 and Friedman appeared at the December 8, 1989 hearing to object to entering further injunctions. After listening to argument from Local 507, Friedman, and the Government, this Court let stand the temporary restraining orders in place pending the submission of further papers. Local 507 and Friedman were to submit memoranda by Monday, December 11, 1989, and the Government response papers by Wednesday, December 13, 1989. A further hearing on the temporary restraining orders and a factual hearing on the alleged contumacious conduct of Friedman was to be held on Friday, December 15, 1989. After the December 11, 1989 hearing, Friedman withdrew his motion before the Judge White.

At the factual portion of the December 15, 1989 hearing, the Government presented documentary evidence and the testimony of Harold Friedman to support its contention that Mr. Friedman was in contempt, and had the power to cause the withdrawal of the Cleveland suit and motion. The December 15, 1989 hearing was adjourned until December 20, 1989 in order that Friedman and Local 507 would produce records that might support the Government's contentions.

On December 20, 1989, the contempt hearing resumed with Friedman again testifying as to his role in the Cleveland suit, the remaining Cleveland action. After lengthy and emotional testimony by Friedman about his leadership positions in the Ohio subdivisions of the IBT and his role in the filing of the Cleveland actions, this Court granted Friedman a one-week period to cause the withdrawal of the Cleveland suit, and to comply with the Government's request to produce additional records of Local 507. On December 22, 1989 this Court was notified that the Cleveland suit had been withdrawn and presented with copies of the dismissal without prejudice. The Government withdrew its discovery requests.

The third suit filed was brought on December 8, 1989 by Joint Council 73*fn3 and Local 641 before Judge Ackerman in the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey suit"). Styled Joint Council 73 et al. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Charles Carberry, Investigations Officer, 89 Civ. 5094 (D.N.J.), the New Jersey suit challenges the authority of Investigations Officer Carberry to examine the books and records of Joint Council 73 and Local 641.*fn4 The plaintiffs ask the New Jersey court to declare invalid ¶ 12(C)(i)(a) of the Consent Decree, which authorizes the Investigations Officer to examine the books and records of IBT subordinate entities.

Three other IBT locals which also received the same production request informed the Investigations Officer that for the moment they would voluntarily comply with the examination request, but reserved the right to object to these requests at a future time. Two of the Locals, 617 and 863, are located in New Jersey and members of Joint Council 73. The remaining objector, Local 283, has members from Detroit, Michigan and vicinity and is part of Joint Council 43, which encompasses Michigan Locals.

In response to the three active collateral suits and the threatened legal action from three other subordinate IBT entities, the Government asked this Court to issue an injunction nationwide in scope banning all collateral lawsuits and ordering that all such actions be brought before this Court.

B. The Nationwide Order to Show Cause

On December 15, 1989, the Government presented and this Court signed an order requiring all subordinate IBT entities — over 700 in number — to show cause why an injunction should not be entered under the power conferred upon this Court by the All Writs Act preventing them from filing any suit seeking to adjudicate matters relating to the Consent Decree anywhere except before this Court (the "nationwide order to show cause"). The Government also requested, and this Court entered a temporary restraining order pursuant to the All Writs Act and Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preventing the IBT or any subordinate entity from initiating or prosecuting lawsuits which raise issues relating to the implementation of the Consent Decree (the "nationwide TRO"). The overall purpose of these actions (collectively, the "nationwide injunction") was to preserve the status quo pending full consideration of the propriety of collateral law-suits in other jurisdictions arising under the Consent Decree.*fn5

The nationwide order to show cause served over 700 locals, joint conferences, and area conferences by overnight mail and determined that receipt of the Government's moving papers by 5:00 p.m. on December 19, 1989 by a subordinate entity constituted valid service. The order further required subordinate entities to submit papers by 5:00 p.m. on December 26, 1989. The Government would submit response papers by 5:00 p.m. on December 29, 1989. The matter would be deemed fully submitted on January 2, 1990, when the ten-day nationwide TRO would expire.

A tremendous number of the IBT subordinate entities responded to the nationwide order to show cause and filed papers on December 26. This court received over 70 briefs from subordinate entities representing at least 282 out of the 651 Locals, 20 of the 44 Joint Councils, and two state conferences. Upon request of the Government this Court found good cause to extend the nationwide TRO an additional ten day period because of this overwhelming response, and on January 2, 1990 entered an order continuing the nationwide TRO until January 17, 1990.

II. The Autumn of Discontent

These latest installments in the ongoing saga to implement the Consent Decree trace their roots to the conflict between the IBT and Government and the Court Officers over the Consent Decree. These disputes generally involve contentions over the scope of the duties of the Court Officers, or to what extent Consent Decree binds the myriad parts of the vast organizational structure that is the IBT.

The first major dispute related to the duties of the Election Officer, Michael Holland. This issue was raised in Application II, which the Independent Administrator filed with this Court on September 29, 1989. This disagreement over the interpretation of ¶ 12(D) of the Consent Decree resulted in a hearing on October 13, 1989 and was settled by the October 18, 1989 Memorandum and Order of this Court, 723 F. Supp. 203 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (Edelstein, J.).*fn6 The discord centered around the interpretations of the word "supervise" and the phrase "1991 election."

At the October 13 hearing, the IBT advocated narrow interpretations of ¶ 12(D), arguing first that the phrase "1991 election" limited the Election Officer's duties only to the ballots for International Officers at the 1991 IBT Convention, and not the nominating process involving local IBT elections unless sought. Further, the IBT asked that "supervise" be interpreted to limit the Election Officer to an observer status with no authority to intrude on elections of the locals. The Government and the Court Officers offered an interpretation of ¶ 12(D) which envisioned the Election Officer involved in all phases of the 1991 election, and saw "supervise" as empowering the Election Officer to take an affirmative and proactive role in all facets of the 1991 election, including the local elections to elect delegates to the 1991 IBT Convention.

The October 18, 1989 Opinion of this Court endorsed the affirmative and active interpretations of ¶ 12(D) of the Consent Decree, finding that the parties intended expansive meanings for both "supervise"*fn7 and "1991 election."*fn8 Taken together, these interpretations empower the Election Officer to make meaningful reforms to the IBT electoral process.*fn9

This interpretation of ¶ 12(D) has been vigorously opposed by the IBT. On October 27, 1989, the IBT moved this Court seeking (1) certification of the questions decided in the October 18, 1989 Opinion, and (2) a stay of those rulings pending appeal. On November 6, 1989, this Court issued an Order (the "November 6, 1989 Order") denying the IBT's motion for certification of these questions and refused to stay that decision. The IBT appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where argument was held on December 12, 1989. On December 13, 1989 the Second Circuit dismissed the IBT's motions for appeals, granting the Government's motions to dismiss the IBT's appeals.

A further matter was raised at the October 13, 1989 hearing, where Friedman and Hughes jointly and separately moved this Court to prevent the Independent Administrator from hearing charges filed against them by the Investigations Officer. On October 16, 1989, this Court held a hearing on this injunction (the "October 16, 1989 hearing").

Friedman and Hughes argued, among other things, the unfairness of the Investigations Officer filing charges against them for conduct which formed the basis for their criminal convictions on labor racketeering charges in the case of United States v. Friedman, et al. in the Northern District of Ohio. Friedman and Hughes maintained that they could not be prosecuted because the IBT Constitution barred bringing charges for conduct that happened prior to their current elective term if it was "known generally" to the membership. Further, Hughes claimed, that since he was neither a party to the original suit nor a signatory of the Consent Decree, he was not bound by its changes to the IBT Constitution or any other of its provisions.

This Court found that the Independent Administrator could proceed with hearing the charges brought by the Investigations Officer. In a Memorandum & Order dated November 2, 1989 (the "November 2, 1989 Opinion"), this Court distinguished between allegations and conduct "known generally" to the membership. The November 2, 1989 Opinion further found that Hughes, even as a non-signatory to the Consent Decree was bound by it. The litigation posture of the IBT — whose whole purpose is to represent and protect its members — was to doggedly protect its members interests both during the active suit and in implementing the Consent Decree, and all parties intended that all IBT International Officer, Locals, and rank and file be bound by the Consent Decree. Friedman and Hughes subsequently appealed the November 2 Opinion to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit preserved their right to appeal the outcomes of their hearings.*fn10

Relations between the Court Officers and the IBT began in a spirit of hoped-for cooperation and unity of purpose, but as the months passed these interactions became increasingly bitter. The first disputes centered around disputes over office space and funding that the IBT would provide to the Court Officers. Simmering tensions flared up in a series of events which followed the machinations involving Friedman and Hughes.

On November 1, 1989 the Independent Administrator filed Application V, where he charged that the IBT failed to notify him of two meetings of the GEB, occurring October 16-18 at Grenelefe, Florida, and a special meeting on November 1, 1989 in Washington, D.C., as required under ¶¶ F.12(C)(b) and F.12(C)(e)(iii) of the Consent Decree, and asked they be sanctioned. At a hearing held on November 13, 1989, the IBT replied they believed the Independent Administrator had constructive knowledge of the October 16-18 regular quarterly meeting, and that the November 1 special meeting involved privileged communications discussing litigation strategy for this case.*fn11 At that hearing, the Independent Administrator informed the IBT he wished to receive agendas for all GEB meetings in 1990.

In an Order of this Court dated November 16, 1989 (the "November 16, 1989 Order") the IBT was asked to submit further memoranda and affidavits on November 20, 1989 for in-camera review in order to evaluate their privilege claim. At a further hearing held on November 22, 1989, this Court redirected the IBT to resubmit a properly prepared and more detailed affidavit and to disclose their memorandum in support of privilege. On November 28, 1989, I received the further submissions from the IBT whose sufficiency was also a matter considered at the December 6, 1989 hearing. At that hearing, the IBT was directed to submit further, more detailed papers on this matter.

On November 3, 1989, I received Application VI from the Independent Administrator, which asked this Court to review the decision of the IBT to alter the publication schedule of the International Teamster magazine from monthly to quarterly, which was also considered at the November 13, 1989 hearing as contravening the spirit of ¶ F.12(E) of the Consent Decree. In the November 16, 1989 Order, this Court interpreted ¶ F.12(E) as assuming that the Independent Administrator would have monthly communications with the IBT membership, and that he should have monthly communications by mail if the magazine's publication were interrupted. Further, this Court ordered that the IBT make all rulings of this Court available to the rank and file, either in the International Teamster, or by direct mail.

Against this background of discord and discontent come the collateral lawsuits in Chicago, Cleveland and New Jersey culminating in the nationwide injunction. This Court has entered injunctions pursuant to the authority vested in this Court by the extraordinary power under the All Writs Act. Despite the voluminous submissions and extraordinary methods employed to confront the situation that had developed over the last two months, the real gist of the issues before this Court is quite simple. The subordinate entities oppose the provisions of the Consent Decree, and through these collateral lawsuits, seek to escape its provisions, or its interpretations by this Court. The Government wishes to bind all the subordinate entities to the reforms embodied in the Consent Decree, and to repulse what it believes are dispersed attacks designed to undermine the viability of the Consent Decree.

III. Authority to Issue the Injunctions

In the orders to show cause, the Government asked this Court to issue injunctions requiring that all suits pertaining to the Consent Decree be filed before this Court. These injunctions also enjoin plaintiffs from prosecuting or instituting suits in sister federal tribunals. A review of the relevant law reveals that this Court has the authority to take this action.

A. The All Writs Act

The Government submitted that this Court has the power to issue extraordinary writs under the All Writs Act. That statute reads as follows:

    The Supreme Court and all courts established by
  Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or
  appropriate in aid of their respective
  jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and
  principles of law.

28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

The broad language of the All Writs Act has been supplemented by case law which outlines the appropriate situations for issuing injunctions that bar parties from litigating suits before other tribunals. In this Circuit, Courts interpreting the scope of this power under the All Writs Act look to that act, and also by analogy to circumstances involving the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, which prevents Federal Courts from issuing injunctions barring proceedings in state tribunals except "when necessary in aid of jurisdiction." In re Baldwin-United Corporation, 770 F.2d 328, 335 (2d Cir. 1985).

Circumstances where inter-court injunctions under the All Writs Act are appropriate include (1) enjoining state actions when necessary to prevent relitigation of an existing federal judgment; Id., see United States v. New York Telephone, 434 U.S. 159, 172, 98 S.Ct. 364, 372, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977); (2) preventing a state court from interfering with a federal court's consideration or disposition of a case so "as to seriously impair the federal court's flexibility and authority to decide that case" Baldwin-United, supra, 770 F.2d at 335, quoting Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 295, 90 S.Ct. 1739, 1747, 26 L.Ed.2d 234 (1970); (3) enjoining a state court seeking to entertain an action over the same res; and in an in rem action, when the parallel state action will defeat the already attached jurisdiction of the federal court. Baldwin-United, supra, 770 F.2d at 336; see Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226, 230, 43 S.Ct. 79, 81, 67 L.Ed. 226 (1922); Cf. Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623, 642, 97 S.Ct. 2881, 2893, 53 L.Ed.2d 1009 (1977); (4) enjoining repeated, baseless, vexatious litigation by the same plaintiff in a federal court, Safir v. United States Lines, Inc, 792 F.2d 19, 23-24 (2d Cir. 1986); and (5) in certain actions involving parallel actions in foreign courts, see Laker Airways v. Sabena, Belgian World Airways, 731 F.2d 909, 926-34 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

In addition to those general circumstances, under the All Writs Act courts may issue injunctions to enjoin other proceedings when the unique character of the litigation requires that relief be determined "flexibly." New York Telephone, supra, 434 U.S. at 173, 98 S.Ct. at 372. A federal court has the power "to issue commands under the All Writs Act as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate and prevent the frustration of orders it has previously issued in the exercise of jurisdiction otherwise obtained." Id. at 174, 98 S.Ct. at 373. The All Writs Act also grants courts the authority to bind non-parties to an action "when needed to preserve the Court's ability to reach or enforce its decision in a case over which it has proper jurisdiction." Baldwin-United, supra, 770 F.2d at 338; see New York Telephone, supra, 434 U.S. at 172, 98 S.Ct. at 372, cf. Vuitton et Fils S.A. v. Carousel Handbags, 592 F.2d 126, 129 n. 6 (2d Cir. 1979) (discussion in dicta).

The existing authority on injunctions under the All Writs Act indicates that a federal court, under special circumstances, has the power to enjoin a parallel proceeding. In addition, a federal court may invoke the All Writs Act to bring before it parties whom it otherwise does not have personal jurisdiction over. The special circumstances of this IBT litigation warrant this Court's exercising its powers under the All Writs Act and enjoining the subordinate entities from litigating matters pertinent to the Consent Decree in any other forum.

  1.  Jurisdictional Basis of this Court over the Suit and the

A threshold question is to establish the independent jurisdictional basis of this Court over all litigation which relates to the Consent Decree. Paragraph K.16 of the Consent Decree vests this Court with just such jurisdiction. That provision reads:

    "This Court shall retain jurisdiction to
  supervise the activities of the Administrator and
  to entertain any future applications by the
  Independent Administrator or the parties. This
  Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to decide
  any and all issues relating to the Administrator's
  actions or authority pursuant to this order."

Consent Decree at 25.

Paragraph K.16 establishes the procedure that all matters relating to the administration of the Consent Decree are to be reviewed by this Court upon an Application, a procedural device settled upon by the parties.*fn12 The Independent Administrator is authorized to make Applications on behalf of the Election Officer and the Investigations Officer. Paragraph K.16 of the Consent Decree permits other parties to file Applications to the Court as well.

Some subordinate entities have argued that ΒΆ K.16 vests this Court with exclusive jurisdiction over the actions of the Independent Administrator, but not the two other Court Officers, the Election Officer or the Investigations Officer. As an example, proponents of this argument point out that since the Chicago suit challenges actions of the Election Officer, it does not directly involve the Independent Administrator and may be brought in the tribunal ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.